Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Cleaner heavy transports e Environmental and economic analysis of

liquefied natural gas and biomethane
Marcus Gustafsson *, Niclas Svensson
€ping University, SE-581 83, Linko
Environmental Technology and Management, Department of Management and Engineering, Linko €ping, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Looking to reduce climate change impact and particle emissions, the heavy-duty transport sector is
Received 21 April 2020 moving towards a growth within technology and infrastructure for use of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Received in revised form This opens an opportunity for the biogas market to grow as well, especially in the form of liquefied
2 July 2020
biomethane (LBM). However, there is a need to investigate the economic conditions and the possible
Accepted 29 July 2020
environmental benefits of using LBM rather than LNG or diesel in heavy transports. This study presents a
Available online 9 August 2020
comparison of well-to-wheel scenarios for production, distribution and use of LBM, LNG and diesel,
Handling editor: Yutao Wang assessing both environmental and economic aspects in a life cycle perspective. The results show that
while LNG can increase the climate change impact compared to diesel by up to 10%, LBM can greatly
Keywords: reduce the environmental impact compared to both LNG and diesel. With a German electricity mix, the
Biomethane climate change impact can be reduced by 45e70% compared to diesel with LBM from manure, and by 50
Natural gas e75% with LBM from food waste. If digestate is used to replace mineral fertilizer, the impact of LBM can
Heavy transport even be less than 0. However, the results vary a lot depending on the type of feedstock, the electricity
Liquefaction
system and whether the calculations are done according to RED or ISO guidelines. Economically, it can be
Life cycle assessment
hard for LBM to compete with LNG, due to relatively high production costs, and some form of economic
Life cycle cost
incentives are likely required.
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction and bus manufacturers, including Daimler (2018), Isuzu (2018),

Transportation of people and goods requires vast amounts of
energy and is a major source of air pollution and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. Within the European Union (EU), there is a goal to
reduce GHG emissions from transports by at least 60% by 2050
compared to 1990, without impairing mobility (European
Commission, 2016). Around 25% of the GHG emissions from road
transports in the EU are accounted for by commercial heavy-duty
vehicles such as buses and trucks (EEA, 2018). Alternative propul-
sion technologies to reduce pollution and climate change impact
are broadly investigated in research, including batteries, fuel cells
and gas. When it comes to gas, liquefied natural gas (LNG) has the
advantage of a higher volumetric energy density than compressed
gas (Benjaminsson and Nilsson, 2009), which makes it feasible to
use in heavy and long-distance transports. Engines designed for
methane propulsion are currently being produced by several truck
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: marcus.gustafsson@liu.se (M. Gustafsson), niclas.svensson@
liu.se (N. Svensson).
Iveco (2015), Scania (2017) and Volvo Trucks (2017). At the same
time, efforts to build up an LNG fueling infrastructure take place e.g.
within the LNG Blue Corridors project (LNG BC, 2013) and through
current fueling station expansion in the Nordic countries (Gasum,
2019). Smajla et al. (2019) stated that LNG in heavy transports is
more economic than diesel in a long perspective and that switching
to LNG is crucial for meeting environmental goals.
Compared to diesel, compressed or liquefied natural gas is often
shown to give a certain reduction of GHG emissions from vehicles.
Considering the whole production-to-use pathway of fuelsdu-
sually referred to as well-to-wheel (WTW) analysisdSpeirs et al.
(2020) showed a reduction of GHG emissions with natural gas
compared to diesel of up to 16%, Arteconi et al. (2010) reported a
GHG emission reduction with LNG of up to 10%, Bo €rjesson et al.
(2016) showed a reduction of 2e12% for heavy-duty vehicles and
Ou and Zhang (2013) found a GHG reduction of 5e10%. However,
the GHG savings are limited by a lower efficiency of gas engines
compared to diesel engines, by methane leakage and by the fact
that natural gas is a fossil fuel. Arteconi et al. (2010) found that
small-scale LNG production resulted in GHG emissions in line with

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123535
0959-6526/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
2 M. Gustafsson, N. Svensson / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
AD anaerobic digestion
AF annuity factor
AS amine scrubbing
LBM liquefied biomethane
C3MR propane/mixed refrigerant
GHG greenhouse gas
LCA life cycle assessment
LCC life cycle cost
LNG liquefied natural gas
MCF methane conversion factor
MR mixed refrigerant
PM particulate matters
RED renewable energy directive
SI spark ignition
TTW tank-to-wheel
VOC volatile organic compounds
VS volatile solids
diesel, and Stettler et al. (2019) found that the GHG emissions of
heavy-duty vehicles running on natural gas were equal to or up to
8% higher than the emissions of equivalent diesel vehicles. Speirs
et al. (2020) also found that the GHG emissions could in fact in-
crease by replacing diesel with natural gas, and Cooper et al. (2019)
found that the benefits of reduced climate change impact with
natural gas could be lost if the methane emissions exceed 1.5e3.5%.
From a technical point of view, fossil natural gas can easily be
exchanged for renewable biomethane, either as compressed or
liquefied biomethane (LBM, also known as bio-LNG). Biomethane is
produced from organic materials through fermentation (biogas) or
thermal processes and is treated to have a similar properties as
natural gas, and can therefore be regarded as one possible way
towards a more renewable gas network (Speirs et al., 2018). While
the EU market for natural gas is largely dependent on imports
(Eurostat, 2019a; IGU, 2017), biogas and biomethane are often
produced and used domestically or even locally (Kampman et al.,
2016). Currently, the practice of using biomethane in road trans-
ports is very limited, with Sweden being the leader in Europe
(EurObserv’ER, 2017), although there is a growing interest and
policy support in many countries (Gustafsson and Anderberg,
2020). On average, the share of biomethane in European vehicle
gas is about 17%, with some countries reaching close to 100%
(Ho€rmann, 2020). Estimates suggest a potential steep increase in
LBM production in Europe (Agelbratt and Berggren, 2015).
Pa€€
akko€nen et al. (2019) concluded that half the heavy-duty trans-
port sector in Finland could rely on biomethane by 2030. The total
biogas production in the EU-28 has increased by a factor 10 since
the turn of the millennium, from around 70 PJ/year to over 700 PJ/
year (Eurostat, 2019b). While the biogas production from landfill
gas and sewage sludge have been rather static in the last 15 years,
most of this change is due to a growth in other anaerobic digestion,
such as energy crops, manure and food waste (Eurostat, 2019b). For
the further development of biofuel production, the European Union
advocates second-generation, or advanced, biofuels (European
Commission, 2009), which are based on non-food crops or
byproducts from agriculture and forestry (Sims et al., 2008).
Second-generation biofuels should thereby achieve significant
WS water scrubbing
WTW well-to-wheel
Symbols
B0 maximum methane potential
CH₄ methane
CO carbon monoxide
CO₂ carbon dioxide
i interest rate
mCH4 mass of methane emitted during storage
mmanure mass of manure
N depreciation period
N₂ nitrogen
NH₃ ammonia
NH₄-N ammonium nitrogen
N₂O dinitrogen monoxide
NOₓ nitrogen oxides
SO₂ sulfur oxides
rCH4 density of methane
s2 variance
reductions of environmental impact compared to fossil fuels, while
also avoiding a competition of land between food and fuel pro-
duction. While large producers of biogas like Germany and Italy
currently use a lot of energy crops in their supply chains (EBA,
2020), many EU countries even exclude energy crops in national
regulations on biogas production (EurObserv’ER, 2017).
The environmental impact of biomethane as a transport fuel has
been assessed in several studies. Shanmugam et al. (2018)
compared the environmental impact of LBM and diesel for heavy
trucks in Sweden, concluding that LBM is superior in 7 out of 10
investigated impact categories. Hagos and Ahlgren (2018)
compared the energy balance and GHG emissions of natural gas
and biomethane in road and maritime transports, showing that
biomethane can greatly reduce the WTW emissions despite a
higher energy input. Lyng and Brekke (2019) performed a well-to-
wheel analysis of fuels for buses and found that biomethane from
food waste or manure is among the vehicle fuels with the lowest
environmental impacts on the market. Further, Natividad Pe rez-
Camacho et al. (2019) found that biomethane can reduce the GHG
emissions by around 500 kg CO₂-equivalents per MWh in a life cycle
perspective compared to petrol or diesel. In addition to the envi-
ronmental aspects of biomethane as a vehicle fuel, biogas and
biomethane production systems typically include environmental
and other benefits that are not strictly tied to the production of an
energy carrier (Hagman and Eklund, 2016). For example, produc-
tion of biogas through anaerobic digestion generates a by-product
that can be used as a fertilizer, thus displacing an equivalent
amount of conventional mineral fertilizer. The technical reports by
Edwards et al. (2014) and Bo€rjesson et al. (2016) both note that not
only is the possible GHG reduction compared to diesel substantially
larger with biomethane than with natural gas, but the climate
change impact of biomethane can even become negative if external
effects of biogas production are included in the calculations. While
this type of system expansion is encouraged in the ISO standards
for LCA (ISO, 2006a, 2006b), the EU Renewable Energy Directive
(RED) does not allow it (European Commission, 2009).
The financial conditions for production of biomethane can vary a
lot depending on technology, scale, feedstock, energy costs,
 M. Gustafsson, N. Svensson / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535 3

economic incentives and other factors. Several studies have 2. Methodology

assessed the economic aspects of different ways of producing
biogas and biomethane, including recent publications by Lombardi The analysis consisted of two parts, as illustrated in Fig. 1: an
and Francini (2020), Martín-Hern andez et al. (2020) and Gustafsson analysis of WTW environmental impact of liquefied biomethane
et al. (2020a). However, comparisons against competing technol- (LBM), liquefied natural gas (LNG) and diesel, which was done
ogies such as fossil fuels are less common in the literature. through life cycle assessment (LCA); and a comparison between the
Pa€€
akko€ nen et al. (2019) found that in Finland, biomethane pro- WTW life cycle cost of LBM production and the market price of LNG.
duction costs could be competitive with the market price of diesel, The WTW analysis was done by modelling and analyzing a set of
not taking into account any possible margin for revenue from scenarios of production, distribution and use. Each scenario rep-
selling the biomethane. Bo € rjesson et al. (2016) found that the WTW resents a possible pathway for the fuel from resource extraction to
costs of heavy-duty trucks with LBM could be comparable to diesel use in the vehicle, including all the intermediary processes to get
trucks in Sweden, including taxes, but not as low as with LNG. there. The modelling process and the studied scenarios are pre-
Tybirk et al. (2018) argued that it will be difficult for biomethane sented in sections 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. The data used in envi-
producers to compete with the price of natural gas, especially in ronmental and economic calculations is presented in section 2.3,
regions with availability of shale gas. Still, there is a need for further and the sensitivity and uncertainty analyses conducted are further
studies on how factors such as technology, feedstock and scale explained in section 2.4.
influence the competitiveness of biomethane as a vehicle fuel.
Liquefaction of methane is a well-known concept with proven 2.1. Modelling
technologies. However, they are usually designed for the scale of
natural gas production. Biogas is produced in much smaller vol- The environmental impact of the scenarios was evaluated
umes, and in comparison to LNG production facilities a liquefaction following ISO 14040 and 14,044 guidelines for LCA (ISO, 2006a,
plant for biomethane could be considered “nano-scale” (Tybirk 2006b). An LCA consists of four principal steps: Goal and scope
et al., 2018). Natural gas liquefaction processes worldwide are definition, Life cycle inventory (data collection), Environmental
mainly based on Air Products’ technologies with mixed refrigerant impact assessment and Interpretation of results. The boundaries
condensation (IGU, 2017). The most common liquefaction tech- were set to cover the whole fuel pathway from extraction or
nology for natural gas applications is C3MR, which utilizes propane collection of raw materials to combustion in the vehicle’s engine, in
(C₃H₈) and a mixed refrigerant (MR) for cooling and condensing the other words well-to-wheel (WTW). Modelling and calculations
gas in two cycles (Usama et al., 2011). Gustafsson et al. (2020a) were done using SimaPro 8, a widely used tool for LCA (Goedkoop
analyzed the costs, energy use and environmental impact of sce- et al., 2016). Environmental impact assessment, i.e. calculation of
narios for production and distribution of compressed and liquefied environmental impact of the included materials and energy flows,
biomethane, including the five upgrading technologies described was done with the ReCiPe heuristic midpoint method (PRe , 2014),
by Bauer et al. (2013) and four different technologies for liquefac- which is commonly used in LCA research studies. The assessment
tion. Their results showed that the differences between the com- covered five impact categories: climate change, terrestrial acidifi-
mercial upgrading technologies are quite small, except for amine cation, freshwater eutrophication, ozone formation (impact on
scrubbing which uses less electricity and more heat than other
technologies (Gustafsson et al., 2020a). In general, biomethane
production systems are more dependent on electricity than natural
gas production (Edwards et al., 2014), where part of the gas stream
is often used in gas turbines for internal energy demands (Raj et al.,
2016; Songhurst, 2018). This implies that the local electricity sys-
tem would influence the WTW performance of biomethane
compared to natural gas or diesel, which (to the authors’ knowl-
edge) is yet to be assessed in research.
While there has been some previous research on the environ-
mental aspects of LNG and LBM in transports, there is a lack of
studies comparing the economic aspect. Moreover, there appears to
be a lack of attention towards geographical differences in com-
parisons of LNG and LBM, specifically the influence on the envi-
ronmental performance of the local electricity system. This paper
presents an environmental and economic WTW analysis of sce-
narios for production and distribution of LNG and LBM for heavy-
duty trucks in a European context. The comparison includes
different feedstock for biogas production as well as different
technologies to produce and distribute LNG and LBM, and different
electricity mixes for production of LBM. As a reference, conven-
tional diesel is also included in the comparison. Environmental
impact is assessed in form of climate change, acidification, eutro-
phication, ground-level ozone formation and stratospheric ozone
layer depletion, both with the RED method and with system
expansion according to ISO. The cost of producing LBM is calculated
depending on production capacity and compared to the market
price of LNG. Thus, this paper provides a broad overview of the
environmental and economic aspects of LNG and LBM for heavy-
duty trucks, covering several possible pathways and assessing the Fig. 1. Overview of the methodology of the study. The analysis consisted of environ-
influential factors. mental impact assessment and economic analysis.
4 M. Gustafsson, N. Svensson / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535
human health) and stratospheric ozone depletion. For processes
where specific data could not be obtaineddsuch as production of
diesel and natural gas, fuel distribution and electricity pro-
ductiondgeneric processes from the Ecoinvent database version
3.5 (Moreno Ruiz et al., 2018; Weidema et al., 2013) were used.
These processes were selected to represent the modelled system as
closely as possible, e.g. electricity markets in specific countries (see
section 2.4) and distribution trucks of European standard (Euro 6).
In the life cycle cost (LCC) calculations, costs of capital, operation
and maintenance and distribution for LBM pathways were
compared to the European market price of LNG, as the equivalent
costs for LNG pathways could not be retrieved. This means that the
LBM would have to add a revenue for sales to be able to compare
with LNG on the same basis. However, in this study the comparison
is used to see how close LBM is to becoming a viable market option
in terms of price and thus the difference can be used for discussion.
The LBM costs were calculated using the annuity factor (AF), with a
depreciation period (N) of 15 years and a 6% interest rate (i):
i this case used as fertilizer. In the RED calculations, the environ-
AF ¼
1  ð1  iÞN
Apart from cost for energy, operation and maintenance costs
were assumed to be 2.5% of the investment cost. Similar economic
assumptions were found in several comparable studies, including
Larsson et al. (2015), Bo € rjesson et al. (2016), Gustafsson et al.
(2020a). The cost of distribution of LBM by truck was set to 1.80
V/km, including diesel, driver, truck and other related costs, plus
64.50 V/hour for loading and unloading (4 h per delivery). Distri-
bution costs were based on Pettersson et al. (2006) and updated for
inflation. The cost calculations for fueling LBM did not include costs
for building and operating the fueling station, only electricity for
the pump, since the same fueling stations are also used for LNG, and
the volumes of LNG are much higher compared to LBM. The same
applies for distribution by gas grid.
2.2. Studied scenarios
The studied WTW scenarios covered the way from raw material
to use in a vehicle in a European road transport system. The envi-
ronmental impact of LBM, LNG and diesel were compared on the
basis of 1 km transport with a 40-ton long haulage truck, taking
into consideration differences in fuel economy of gas and diesel
engines. In the economic comparison between LBM and diesel, the
cost of producing 1 kWh LBM was compared to the market price of
1 kWh LNG.
For LBM, the system boundary started at collection of raw ma-
terial for anaerobic digestion (AD) and ended at combustion in the
vehicle (Fig. 2), in a spark-ignited (SI) Otto engine. Two types of
feedstock were considered for the biogas production: manure and
food waste, which are both eligible feedstock for advanced or
second-generation biofuels. The biogas from the AD was assumed
to be upgraded to biomethane through water scrubbing (WS) or
amine scrubbing (AS) after which it was liquefied through mixed-
refrigerant (MR) or nitrogen (N₂) cycle, distributed by truck,
fueled and combusted in a vehicle. Alternatively, the biomethane
was distributed via a high-pressure gas grid to a pressure reduction
liquefaction facility. WS is currently the most common technology
for biogas upgrading in Europe in terms of produced volume (Prussi
et al., 2019), while AS stands out compared to other conventional
upgrading technologies when it comes to energy use (Gustafsson
et al., 2020a). For gas upgraded through WS, an extra CO₂ polish-
ing step was considered before MR or N₂ cycle liquefaction whereas
AS can meet the purity requirements for liquefaction at the cost of
an increased energy use (Bauer et al., 2013; Karlsson, 2018).
Distribution of liquefied gas was done by truck with a 25-ton
cryogenic tank. For scenarios with pressure reduction liquefac-
tion, the gas was compressed to 60 bar and distributed via the
natural gas grid. The pressure reduction liquefaction process was
assumed to produce 10% liquefied gas, while the remaining 90%
was considered to be used as in gaseous form in other applications
(He and Ju, 2013).
For the LBM scenarios, two sets of calculations were done, using
different system boundaries: one following the ISO standard for
LCA, and one following RED. In the ISO calculations, the use of
digestate from anaerobic digestion (AD) as a biofertilizer were
included, and alternative handling of the substrates used in AD was
considered. In the case of manure as substrate, this meant that
methane emissions from conventional manure handling could be
avoided, and a larger amount of mineral fertilizers could be
replaced as the AD process increases the nitrogen availability in the
digestate. In the food waste scenarios, the alternative waste
handling scenario was assumed to be incineration with cogenera-
tion of heat and electricity, and the digestate from AD was also in
(1)
mental impact of the digestate, as well as alternative waste
handling and the possible gain of displacing mineral fertilizer
production, was not included, as RED prescribes energy allocation
between biogas and digestate rather than system expansion.
For LNG, the system boundary covered the way from raw ma-
terial extraction to combustion in the SI engine (Fig. 3), with similar
pathways as for LBM. Before liquefaction, natural gas goes through
a series of purification processes to clean it from carbon dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide and water (Ma et al., 2017). The studied lique-
faction technologies include C3MR and N₂ cycle liquefaction, as well
as pressure reduction liquefaction from the gas grid.
In the food waste LBM scenarios, substrate and digestate were
assumed to be transported on average 25 km between the substrate
source and the biogas plant, and between the biogas plant and the
digestate recipient. An exception was made in the manure sce-
narios, where the biogas plant was assumed to be located at the
farm, making such transports redundant. The mineral fertilizer
replaced in ISO calculations was assumed to be produced further
from the area of use, requiring a transport of 50 km. LNG and LBM
were transported in a 25-ton cryogenic tank over an average dis-
tance of 200 km. The LNG pathways additionally included a ship
transport over 10,000 km, representing the distance between
Middle East (Qatar) and Western Europe (Netherlands) via the Suez
Canal. Alternatively, the fuels were distributed via pipeline, over a
distance of 200 km for biomethane and 5000 km for natural gas.
Diesel was assumed to be produced in the Middle East and trans-
ported the same way as LNG from the refinery to the area of use
(Fig. 4).
2.3. Data collection
Energy use, costs, methane content in biogas and methane slip
for anaerobic digestion are listed in Table 1, and data for substrates
and digestates is listed in Table 2. Data for manure were taken to be
the average of data for cattle and swine manure. The share of
ammonium nitrogen (NH₄-N) was assumed to be 20% higher after
anaerobic digestion compared to the undigested substrate. This
value falls within intervals found in publications by Mo €ller and
Müller (2012) and Sinclair et al. (2013). In accordance with the
same sources, the availability of phosphorus and potassium was
assumed to not increase through anaerobic digestion. In ISO cal-
culations, digestate of manure was therefore assumed to replace an
equal amount (mass input) of undigested manure, plus artificial
nitrogen fertilizer corresponding to the increased NH₄-N content,
while the amounts of phosphorus and potassium were assumed to
 M. Gustafsson, N. Svensson / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535 5

Fig. 2. Schematic view of the modelled WTW scenarios for LBM. Going from the left to the right, each of the indicated pathways represent a possible scenario from production to
end user: biogas production, upgrading to biomethane, liquefaction and distribution, fueling and combustion in vehicle engine. The color and weight of the lines indicate the state
(gas/liquid) and methane content at that part of the pathway. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this
article.)

Fig. 3. Schematic view of the modelled WTW scenarios for LNG. Going from the left to the right, each of the indicated pathways represent a possible scenario from production to
end user: gas extraction and processing, liquefaction and distribution, fueling and combustion in vehicle engine. The color and weight of the lines indicate the state (gas/liquid) and
methane content at that part of the pathway. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 4. Schematic view of the modelled WTW scenario for diesel.

be unchanged compared to the alternative waste handling and
were left out of the calculations. In the food waste scenarios, the
digestate was assumed to replace mineral fertilizer corresponding
to the total NH₄-N content of the digestate.
Spreading of the digestate was assumed to cause 10% higher
emissions of ammonia (NH₃) and dinitrogen monoxide (N₂O)
compared to mineral fertilizers (Tufvesson et al., 2013). The NH₃
emissions to air were set to 5% of the total ammonium content of
the digestate (Lantz et al., 2009), and 1% was assumed to be emitted
in the form of N₂O (De Klein et al., 2006). The remaining ammonium
in the digestate was modelled as emission to soil. Methane emis-
sions from digestate spread on agricultural land were assumed to
be negligible in relation to methane emissions from biogas pro-
duction (Amon et al., 2006; Tufvesson et al., 2013). The share of
biogas flared in the AD plant due to occasional mismatch between
biogas production and demand was set to 5%. Internal heat demand
6 M. Gustafsson, N. Svensson / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535

Table 1 off-gas was assumed to be treated through catalytic oxidation,

Data used in modelling of environmental impact and life cycle costs of anaerobic converting 95% of the methane to carbon dioxide and water (Herbst
digestion.
et al., 2010). The electricity demand for gas sweetening and dehy-
Parameter Value Unit dration was considered to be 10% of the electricity demand for
Electricity 30a MJ/ton substrate liquefaction (Ho €nig et al., 2019), which was set to 0.26 kWh/kg LNG.
Heat 90a MJ/ton substrate This value is in line with data reported by Yoon et al. (2009) and
Methane content 60%b CNPC (2019), and only slightly higher than the 0.23 kWh/kg re-
Methane slip 0.5%c
ported by Hajji et al. (2019). For LBM production, a German elec-
Investment cost 240e340d V/m3 reactor volume
tricity mix was assumed in the default case, and other alternatives
a
(Lantz et al., 2009).
b
were included in a sensitivity analysis. Road transports were
(Rasi et al., 2007).
c
(Lantz and Bjo €rnsson, 2016). considered to be done with gas vehicles in the gas scenarios (using
d
(Lantz, 2013). LNG in the LNG pathways and LBM in the LBM pathways) and with
diesel vehicles in the diesel scenario. Tank-to-wheel (TTW) emis-
sions from combustion of the studied fuels (Table 4) were based on
for the AD plant, as well as for AS upgrading, was assumed to be emission data for heavy freight trucks from Stettler et al. (2019).
covered through combustion of raw biogas with 95% efficiency The SI gas engines were considered to require 18% more energy per
(Lantz et al., 2009; Tufvesson et al., 2013). km than the diesel engines (Bo € rjesson et al., 2016; Gustafsson et al.,
In the scenarios where manure was used as a feedstock, the AD 2020b): 3.24 kWh/km, compared to 2.74 kWh/km for diesel
process was assumed to reduce methane emissions compared to (Gustafsson et al., 2020b).
conventional handling of manure by 90% (Tufvesson et al., 2013). In the economic analysis, the cost for producing LBM was
The amount of methane emissions from manure was calculated compared to the European market price of LNG, which was found to
through: have varied between 4 and 10 USD/mmBtu over the last five years,
or 0.012 to 0.030 EUR/kWh (YCharts, 2019).
mCH4 ¼ mmanure ,VS,B0 ,MCF,rCH4 (2)

where mmanure is the amount of manure (kg), VS is the share of
volatile solids (%), B0 is the maximum methane production of the
substrate (m3/kg), MCF is the methane conversion factor (%), rCH4 is
the density of methane (kg/m3) at normal temperature and pres-
sure and mCH4 is the amount of methane emitted during storage
(kg). B0 was set to 0.345 (average between dairy cattle and swine
manure) in accordance with Gavrilova et al. (2006), and MCF to
3.5% (Tufvesson et al., 2013).
In the scenarios where food waste was used as a feedstock, the
alternative waste handling was considered to be combustion with
energy recovery, with heat and electricity efficiencies of 74% and
21%, respectively (Hamelin et al., 2014), and a lower heating value
of 20 MJ/kg dry matter (Davidsson et al., 2007). As the food waste in
these scenarios was used for biogas production rather than energy
production, equivalent amounts of heat and electricity were
considered to be produced from natural gas.
Data for the other processes included in the studied scenar-
iosdgas upgrading, liquefaction and fuelingdare listed in Table 3.
Internal electricity demand for LNG production was assumed to be
covered with gas turbines, using part of the gas flow (Raj et al.,
2016; Songhurst, 2018), with an efficiency of 40% (Siemens, 2016).
The production of natural gas was assumed to have a methane slip
of 1%, similar to water scrubber biogas upgrading. In both cases, the
2.4. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis
Electricity use for production of LBM was modelled with elec-
tricity mixes representative for Germany, UK, Italy and Sweden, in
order to investigate the sensitivity with respect to how the elec-
tricity is produced. Germany, UK and Italy are the three largest
biogas producers in Europe, while Sweden currently has the largest
market for biomethane as a transport fuel (EurObserv’ER, 2017). In
the Ecoinvent database version 3.5 (updated 2018), the major
components of the studied electricity mixes are: lignite (28%), hard
coal (22%) and nuclear power (18%) in the German mix; hard coal
(34%), natural gas (28%) and nuclear power (21%) in the UK mix;
natural gas (34%), hydropower (26%) and hard coal (18%) in the
Italian mix; and hydropower (45%) and nuclear power (43%) in the
Swedish mix (Table 5) (Moreno Ruiz et al., 2018; Weidema et al.,
2013). Considering the fact that electricity is exported and im-
ported between different countries in Europe, these scenarios serve
more to illustrate the difference between contrasting electricity
systems than to represent the situation in either of the four
countries.
For climate change impact, the level of uncertainty in the results
was assessed through Monte Carlo analysis, which constructs an
interval based on probability functions and the combined

Table 2
Data for substrates and digestates used in modelling of anaerobic digestion. The table shows the used values (average) as well as the Intervals found in literature.

Substrate type TS, % VS of TS, % Methane yield, m3/ton VS Total N, kg/ton NH₄-N in digestate, % of N

Manure 8 80 290 3.9 67

Cattle 8.5e9a,b,c 80a 213e240a,d 2.6e4.3a,b,e,f,g 54e67e,g
Swine 7.3e8a,b 80a 268e450a,d 3.1e5.9a,b,e,f 68e81a,e
Food waste 22 (18e28)h 90 (87e94)h 360 (275e461)a,h,i 5.2 (3.1e7.5)a,e,h,j 70 (60e80)e,j
a
(Carlsson and Uldal, 2009).
b
(Kirchmann and Witter, 1992).
c
(Walsh et al., 2012).
d
(Gavrilova et al., 2006).
e
(Sinclair et al., 2013).
f
(Mo€ ller and Müller, 2012).
g
(Lukehurst et al., 2010).
h
(Banks et al., 2018).
i
(Davidsson et al., 2007).
j
(Ljung et al., 2012).
 M. Gustafsson, N. Svensson / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535 7

Table 3
Data used in modelling of environmental impact and life cycle costs of pathways for biomethane and natural gas.

Process Electricity Heat Water Chemicals Methane content Methane slip Investment cost

MJ/MJ gas MJ/MJ gas m3/kg gas kg/kg gas % % V/(Nm3/h)

a a a a a
Water scrubber 0.039 4.5E-04 6.0E-05 98% 1% 1,490e5,820a
Amine scrubber 1,630e3,300a
Gas grid quality 0.023a,b 0.017b 6.1E-05a 6.1E-05a 99.8%a,b 0.06%a,b
Liquefaction quality 0.034b 0.017b 6.1E-05a 6.1E-05a 99.995%a,b 0.06%a,b
Catalytic oxidation of off-gas 0.008a
BG cleaning for liquefaction 0.015b 99.995%b 1,400e2,600a
NG cleaning for liquefaction 0.002c
Mixed-refrigerant cycle liquefaction (BG) 0.058b,d 99.995%b 0%e 4,650e21,000f
Nitrogen cycle liquefaction (BG) 0.072b 99.995%b 0%e 8,025a
C3MR cycle liquefaction (NG) 0.019g,h 99.995%b 0%e
Nitrogen cycle liquefaction (NG) 0.043i 99.995%b 0%e
Pressure reduction liquefaction 0.001j
Fueling, LBM/LNG 0.0003k
a
(Bauer et al., 2013).
b
(Karlsson, 2018).
c €nig et al., 2019).
(Ho
d
(Cryo Pur, 2019).
e
(Tybirk et al., 2018).
f
(Olgemar and Partoft, 2017).
g
(Yoon et al., 2009).
h
(CNPC, 2019).
i
(Cryostar).
j
(Patterson et al., 2011).
k
(Heisch, 2012).

Table 4
Tank-to-wheel emission factors for a heavy-duty truck running on diesel or CNG (SI engine). Based on data from Stettler et al. (2019).

TTW emissions, kg/kg fuel

CO₂ CO CH₄ N₂O PM VOC NOx

Diesel 6.87E-02 8.16E-05 e 1.69E-06 2.71E-07 1.81E-07 1.35E-04

LNG (SI) 5.85E-02 1.90E-04 5.04E-05 2.04E-07 1.87E-07 1.58E-06 1.50E-05

Table 5 distance for the LBM pathways. The availability of biogas upgrading
Energy sources in electricity production mixes in Germany, UK, Italy and Sweden. plants with respect to maintenance is generally quite high, around
Based on data from Ecoinvent 3.5 (Moreno Ruiz et al., 2018; Weidema et al., 2013).
95% (Bauer et al., 2013; Patterson et al., 2011; Persson, 2003), which
Share of production mix, % was therefore used as one scenario. To account for possible limiting
Energy source Germany UK Italy Sweden factors (e.g. access to substrate, variations in demand), a lower
utilization rate of 50% was also evaluated. For distribution by semi-
Hard coal 22 34 18 0.3
Hydropower 5 3 26 45 trailer, the distance was varied between 0 km (filling station adja-
Natural gas 7 28 34 0.2 cent to production plant) and 400 km (double the default value).
Nuclear power 18 21 0 43
Oil 0.3 0.2 5 0.1
Peat 0 0 0 0.1 3. Results and analysis
Wind 11 9 7 8
Biogas 6 0 5 0
Wood chips 2 5 2 3 3.1. Environmental impact assessment
Blast furnace gas 0.4 0 1 0.2
Coal gas 0.1 0 0.3 0 Fig. 5 shows the climate change impact per km of the studied
Geothermal 0 0 2 0
pathways of diesel, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied bio-
Lignite 28 0 0.4 0
methane (LBM) with biogas from manure, divided into impact from
different processes and with error bars indicating the 95% confi-
dence interval of the uncertainty analysis. The best-performing
uncertainty of all parameters. Parameter values were varied using a liquefaction technology for LBM is liquefaction by pressure reduc-
lognormal distribution, where the value of a parameter lies be- tion of methane from the high-pressure gas grid. Out of the two off-
tween the mean value divided by the variance (s2) and the mean grid technologies, mixed-refrigerant (MR) liquefaction has a lower
value multiplied by s2 (Weidema et al., 2013). Most parameters energy use and climate change impact than nitrogen cycle lique-
were considered to be fairly reliable and representative and s2 was faction, both for LNG (C3MR) and for LBM. For biogas upgrading,
set to 1.1. A higher value, 1.2, was used for parameters regarding the amine scrubbing gives a slightly lower climate change impact than
AD process (electricity and water use, amount of digestate) and for water scrubbing, due to a lower electricity use.
transports, as they were assumed to vary more. For methane slip, s2 Compared to diesel, LBM from anaerobic digestion (AD) of
was set to 1.5. manure can reduce the WTW climate change impact of driving a
In the economic calculations, a sensitivity analysis was done by 40-ton long haulage truck by 45e70%, calculated according to the
varying the utilization of production capacity and the distribution Renewable Energy Directive (RED). If the digestate from AD is
8 M. Gustafsson, N. Svensson / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535
Fig. 5. Climate change impact of diesel, LNG and LBM well-to-wheel pathways. The LBM pathways are based on biogas from anaerobic digestion of manure and electricity use is
modelled with a German electricity mix.
assumed to replace mineral fertilizer in agricultural applications (in
line with ISO standard for life cycle assessment), the climate change
impact even becomes negative, equivalent to a reduction of
100e125% compared to diesel. For LNG, the WTW climate change
impact is comparable to or slightly higher (5e10%) than diesel. This
is mainly due to the higher efficiency of the diesel engine, resulting
in a higher energy demand in the LNG and LBM scenarios (18%
higher per km).
The processes contributing the most to the climate change
impact of the LBM scenarios, apart from the possible negative
impact of digestate, are electricity for AD, upgrading and liquefac-
tion and methane leakages. The uncertainty intervals are ±25e35%
for the LNG scenarios, and around ±40e80% for LBM scenarios,
much due to the high variance of methane leakages (s2 ¼ 1.5), but
also the variance of factors related to substrate and digestate
handling (s2 ¼ 1.2).
The climate change impact of the pathways of LBM from food
waste, as well as diesel and LNG, is shown in Fig. 6. Just as with
manure-based biogas, pipeline distribution and pressure reduction
liquefaction gives the lowest climate change impact for LBM, and
MR results in lower impact than N₂ for both LNG and LBM.
Using a substrate with a higher methane yield, such as food
waste, the WTW climate change impact reduction compared to
diesel can be as high as 50e75% with RED calculations. With ISO
calculations, the reduction compared to diesel is 80e105%. The
uncertainty intervals are ±15e40% for the LBM scenarios. The lower
potential methane leakage compared to the manure-based path-
ways greatly reduces the uncertainty.
Fig. 7 shows the impact on climate change, acidification,
eutrophication, ground-level ozone formation and stratospheric
ozone depletion of diesel, LNG and LBM pathways for different
electricity mixes. The LNG and LBM pathways shown are the ones
that were found to have highest and lowest environmental impact
in all categories: C3MR liquefaction and pressure reduction for LNG,
and WS þ N₂ and AS þ pressure reduction for LBM, respectively.
Among the LBM scenarios, AS þ pressure reduction had the lowest
impact and WS þ N₂ had the highest throughout all of the included
impact categories. For the LNG scenarios, it varied which one had
the highest and which one had the lowest impact, but the differ-
ences were quite small and C3MR was always slightly lower than N₂
liquefaction.
Overall, the Swedish electricity mix results in the lowest envi-
ronmental impact for the LBM scenarios, followed by Germany,
Italy and UK. Another general observation is that the ISO method
gives lower results than the RED method, except in terms of acid-
ification, where the situation is the opposite, and eutrophication,
where there is almost no difference between ISO and RED. The
largest difference is seen in the climate change and stratospheric
ozone depletion impact categories.
The climate change impact is lower for all the LBM pathways
than for LNG and diesel. The lowest impact is achieved with a
Swedish electricity production mix, followed by Italy, UK and
Germany in close competition. As previously seen in Figs. 5 and 6,
electricity use accounts for a large share of the climate change
impact of the LBM pathways, and the use of digestate as fertilizer
can greatly reduce the impact. Thus, most scenarios with LBM from
manure have a negative climate change impact with ISO calcula-
tion, except for WS þ N₂ with a German (manure, food waste),
Italian (food waste) or UK (food waste) electricity production
system.
The potential acidification impact of the studied LBM scenarios
is comparable to LNG and diesel if calculations are done according
to RED, and higher if the ISO method is employed. The difference
between the four electricity production mixes is smaller than in the
climate change category. The main contributing process to acidifi-
cation are electricity use and transports. With system expansion
according to ISO, the avoided production of mineral fertilizer
compensates for some of these factors, but this effect is outranked
 M. Gustafsson, N. Svensson / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535
Fig. 6. Climate change impact of diesel, LNG and LBM well-to-wheel pathways. The LBM pathways are based on biogas from anaerobic digestion of food waste and electricity use is
modelled with a German electricity mix.
by ammonia emissions from the biofertilizer. The LNG scenarios
have a lower acidification impact than diesel.
The eutrophication impact is higher than LNG and diesel for
most of the LBM pathways with a German or UK electricity pro-
duction system, but comparable or lower with Swedish or Italian
electricity. The LNG scenarios have a higher or equal impact to
diesel. The German electricity production system has a much
higher eutrophication impact per kWh electricity than the others (a
factor 4, 6 and 112 compared to UK, Italy and Sweden, respectively).
Apart from the electricity, the processes contributing the most to
eutrophication in the LBM scenarios are the transports. With sys-
tem boundaries according to ISO, the use of biofertilizer to replace
mineral fertilizer contributes with a small reduction of the eutro-
phication impact, whichdwith a Swedish electricity mixdis
enough to result in a negative impact.
Looking at ground-level ozone formation, the impact is lower
for the LBM scenarios than for LNG and diesel, except for a few cases
with a UK, Italian or German electricity production system. LNG has
a higher impact than diesel with pressure reduction liquefaction,
but lower than diesel with C3MR liquefaction. The lowest impact is
seen for LBM scenarios with biogas from food waste. The impact of
the LBM scenarios is mainly due to carbon monoxide emissions
from combustion in the vehicle’s engine.
The impact on stratospheric ozone depletion is much lower for
nearly all LBM scenarios compared to LNG and diesel, especially
with system expansion. The variations between different electricity
mixes is relatively small, but in many cases the Swedish mix gives
the lowest impact. With a German or Italian electricity mix and
calculations according to RED, the LBM pathway impact is com-
parable to LNG, but still lower than diesel. The processes causing
the most ozone layer depletion are the transports and the elec-
tricity for AD, upgrading and liquefaction. The LNG scenarios all
have a lower impact compared to diesel.
9
3.2. Economic analysis
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 show the WTW life cycle cost of LBM scenarios,
depending on production capacity, compared to the market price
range of LNG. In Fig. 8 the LBM production is assumed to be at 95% of
the design production capacity, and in Fig. 9 the utilization rate is set
to 50% of the capacity. It is clear from these figure that LBM pro-
duction has to reach a rather large scale to be able to compete with
natural gas without economic incentives. The lower end of the nat-
ural gas price range appears to be out of reach for most biomethane
technologies, where amine scrubber (AS) and biogas based on food
waste is the one that gets closest, although this comparison does not
include a sales margin for the LBM. At a production capacity of
120 GWh/year and 95% utilization, this scenario reaches a cost of
0.028 EUR/kWh (Fig. 8). At times when the natural gas price is high,
even WS þ MR with biogas from food waste might be cost-efficient
enough to be competitive, at least at a capacity of 100e120 GWh/
year or more. For the manure scenarios, the production cost at
100e120 GWh/year is still more than twice as high as the LNG price,
around 0.050e0.057 EUR/kWh, which means that some form of
incentive is necessary for this type of production to be feasible. If the
production capacity is only utilized to 50% (Fig. 9), the specific in-
vestment costs rise and all LBM scenarios end up with production
costs higher than the LNG price. For the scenario with AS and food
waste, the life cycle cost at 120 GWh/year capacity increases to 0.035
EUR/kWh, while the costs for the manure scenarios reach
0.077e0.084 EUR/kWh at the same plant size.
In the scenarios presented, the LBM is distributed 200 km by
semitrailer, and the distribution cost is about 3 EUR/MWh, or 0.3
eurocent per kWh. If the LBM were to be fueled locally rather than
being transported from the production site, this cost could be dis-
regarded. In that case, the cheapest LBM technology would reach a
cost of 0.025 EUR/kWh at 120 GWh/year production capacity and
10 M. Gustafsson, N. Svensson / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535

Fig. 7. Environmental impact of LBM and LNG pathways compared to diesel in different electricity systems, based on country mix. From top to bottom: Climate change, terrestrial
acidification, freshwater eutrophication, ozone formation (human health impact) and stratospheric ozone depletion.

95% utilization, while WS þ MR with biogas from food waste would 120 GWh/year, and the cost for AS þ MR with biogas from food
nearly match the higher end of the LNG price range (0.030 EUR/ waste at 120 GWh/year would go up to 0.031 EUR/kWh.
kWh) at 120 GWh/year. If, on the other hand, the distribution range The rest of the costs for LBM are shared between AD, upgrading
were twice as large (400 km), this would not occur even at and liquefaction. All specific investment costs decrease with a
 M. Gustafsson, N. Svensson / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535 11

Fig. 8. Life cycle cost of producing LBM as a function of yearly production capacity, compared to market price of LNG, when LBM production is at 95% of the design capacity.

Fig. 9. Life cycle cost of producing LBM as a function of yearly production capacity, compared to market price of LNG, when the LBM production is at 50% of the design capacity.

larger scale, particularly for liquefaction and for upgrading by
amine scrubbing. Thus, the division of costs between different
processes varies with the production capacity. The costs for AD are
higher with manure as feedstock than with food waste, as more
substrate is treated per kWh biogas produced. With AS the share of
costs for AD are higher than with WS, partly because AS requires
less electricity and partly because biogas from the AD is assumed to
be used for producing process heat for the AS.
4. Discussion
Judging from current trends in policy (Gustafsson and Anderberg,
2020) and use of biomethane in road transports (Ho €rmann, 2020), it
seems clear that biomethane from second-generation energy sour-
ces will have an important place in the work towards cleaner
transports. The results of the present study further showdin line
with previous studies by e.g. Shanmugam et al. (2018) and Bo € rjesson
et al. (2016)dthat liquefied biomethane (LBM) can indeed contribute
to reduced environmental impact from heavy-duty vehicles, not
least in terms of climate change impact. However, attention must be
given to the type of feedstock used and how the electricity used in
biomethane production is generated, which is clear from Fig. 7. With
a lower share of fossil fuels and a lower carbon intensity in electricity
production, LBM comes out even better in the comparison with LNG,
as the LBM scenarios to a higher degree are dependent on electricity.
Conversely, the environmental impact of LBM can be quite high if it is
produced with electricity from fossil energy sources. However, the
climate change impact is still lower compared to LNG and diesel even
in electricity systems with a high share of fossil fuels.
While LBM was found to greatly reduce the climate change
impact compared to diesel, the WTW scenarios with LNG resulted
in up to 10% higher climate change impact than diesel. This goes
12 M. Gustafsson, N. Svensson / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535
against findings of e.g. Arteconi et al. (2010) (up to 10% lower
climate change impact) and Ou and Zhang (2013) (5e10% lower
impact), but is supported by results from e.g. Stettler et al. (2019)
(up to 8% higher climate change impact) and Cai et al. (2017)
(1e8% higher impact). As pointed out by e.g. Speirs et al. (2020)
and Cooper et al. (2019), this has to do with the rate of methane
leakage as well as the inferior fuel economy of SI gas engines. Thus,
these are two areas of possible technological improvement which
can help reduce the environmental impact of vehicles using LNG as
well as LBM.
System boundaries and the way in which byproducts are
considered can greatly affect the outcome of the calculations in life
cycle assessment (LCA), as also shown by e.g. Bo € rjesson et al. (2016).
Biomethane produced through AD can be considered to have a
positive environmental impact in many impact categories, due to
the possibility of displacing mineral fertilizers by utilizing the
digestate. However, spreading digestate on agricultural land is not
always on option, in which case this type of system expansion is not
possible. For example, Dutch regulations do not allow the use of
digestate to replace mineral fertilizer (Pfau et al., 2017). There could
also be other reasons, e.g. economic, for not using the digestate,
which would make the RED guidelines more appropriate for
calculating the environmental impact. The ISO method, on the
other hand, shows what is possible to achieve with a larger system
thinking where both the biogas and the digestate from AD are
valued and utilized.
Although an LCA can cover many aspects of environmental
impact, it does not fully reflect all the effects of a complex socio-
technical system such as biogas production. Particularly in a local or
regional perspective biogas solutions can give many benefits,
including e.g. waste treatment, increased resource efficiency,
increased yield from agriculture and rural area development
(Hagman and Eklund, 2016). A complete analysis of a biogas system
would either have to include qualitative elements, for example a
multi-criteria analysis, or some way of converting qualitative values
into quantitative ones, similar to methods for putting a price on air
pollution, noise and traffic congestions (Bångman and Nordlo €f,
2016).
The best-performing liquefaction technology was found to be
pressure reduction of methane from the high-pressure gas grid.
This is of course provided that the production facility is connected
to the gas grid, which is often not the case in some of the Nordic
countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway). Furthermore, as shown by
Gustafsson et al. (2020a), adding propane to the biomethane to
increase the heating value when injecting it to the gas grid, as has
sometimes been custom, greatly increases the environmental
impact of this technology and should be avoided. It should also be
taken into account that the share of the gas that can be liquefied
with this technology is limited to around 10e15% (see e.g. He and
Ju, 2013; Tan et al., 2016), leaving most of it to be used in gaseous
form. Thus, it would not be the technology of choice if the aim is to
only produce liquefied gas.
In the economic comparison of LBM and LNG, natural gas has the
advantage of that it exists in large volumes and requires relatively
cheap processes to obtain a high-energy fuel, while biogas is pro-
duced at a much smaller scale with higher specific costs. Based solely
on the costs for production and distribution, LBM would not be able
to compete with the average market prices of LNG. Considering that
the LBM producers would also like to have a certain margin for
revenue, it is not realistic that a fair competition would be achievable
without economic incentives. The economic calculations by
Bo€rjesson et al. (2016) suggest that the WTW costs of LBM are more
or less in line with market prices of LNG and diesel with the Swedish
taxation system. A recent enquiry commissioned by the Swedish
government suggested a support package for biogas production that
would amount to up to 0.08 EUR/kWh if the biogas is produced from
manure and is upgraded and liquefied, which is almost double the
existing support (for manure-based biogas) (Westlund, 2019). Such
support systems could turn the competition around and stimulate an
increased production of biomethane, although the exact effects on
the production in Sweden or other countries would need further
investigation.
5. Conclusions
This paper has presented an environmental and economic well-
to-wheel analysis of production and distribution pathways of LBM
and LNG for heavy-duty trucks, including different feedstock for
biogas production, different production technologies and different
electricity mixes. The main findings of the study were:
 By replacing diesel with LBM, it is possible to greatly reduce the
WTW environmental impact of heavy-duty trucks in terms of
climate change, acidification, eutrophication, ground-level
ozone formation and stratospheric ozone depletion, thus
achieving cleaner heavy transports. With a German electricity
mix, the climate change impact can be reduced by 45e70% with
LBM from manure, and by 50e75% with LBM from food waste,
not including the use of digestate. In electricity systems with
higher shares of renewable energy, the climate change impact of
LBM is even lower.
 If digestate from biogas production is considered to replace
mineral fertilizer, in accordance with ISO standards for life cycle
assessment, the climate benefits of using LBM instead of diesel
are even larger. With LBM from manure, the climate change
impact could be reduced by 100e125%, and with LBM from food
waste by 80e105%.
 Using LNG instead of diesel in heavy-duty trucks does not
reduce the WTW climate change impact, but can rather increase
it by up to 10%, due to a lower engine efficiency.
 The environmental impact of LBM is greatly influenced by the
type of feedstock used, how the required electricity produced
and whether calculations are done according to ISO or RED
guidelines.
 Although there are clear environmental incentives to use LBM, it
seems difficult to compete economically with the price of LNG,
due to higher specific production costs.
In order for LBM to compete against LNG and other fossil fuels,
some type of economic support is likely to be required. The
investigation of how such economic incentives should be formed
and what changes might be needed in current practices is however
left for future studies. It could also be relevant to look into the
possibility to capture and store or use CO₂ from biogas production,
and what effects that could have on the environmental and eco-
nomic performance of biogas systems.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Marcus Gustafsson: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Niclas
Svensson: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing, Visuali-
zation, 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.
 M. Gustafsson, N. Svensson / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535
Acknowledgement
This research has received funding from the Swedish Biogas
Research Center (BRC), which in turn is funded by the Swedish
Energy Agency, grant number 35624-3.
References
Agelbratt, A., Berggren, A., 2015. Potentials of LBM I Europe (No. D3.9). LNG Blue
Corridors.
Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Amon, T., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., 2006. Methane,
nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions during storage and after application of
dairy cattle slurry and influence of slurry treatment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 112,
153e162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.030.
Arteconi, A., Brandoni, C., Evangelista, D., Polonara, F., 2010. Life-cycle greenhouse
gas analysis of LNG as a heavy vehicle fuel in Europe. Appl. Energy 87,
2005e2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.11.012.
Bångman, G., Nordlo € f, P., 2016. Analysmetod Och Samh€ allsekonomiska Kalkylv€ ar-
den Fo €r Transportsektorn (No. ASEK 6.0). Trafikverket.
Banks, C.J., Heaven, S., Zhang, Y., Baier, U., 2018. Food waste digestion: anaerobic
digestion of food waste for a circular economy (No. 2018:12), 37. IEA Bioenergy
Task.
Bauer, F., Hulteberg, C., Persson, T., Tamm, D., 2013. Biogas Upgrading - Review of
Commercial Technologies (No. SGC 2013:270). Svenskt Gastekniskt Center.
Benjaminsson, J., Nilsson, R., 2009. Distributionsformer fo € r biogas och naturgas i
Sverige. Grontmij consulting company.
€rjesson, P., Lantz, M., Andersson, J., Bjo
Bo € rnsson, L., Mo € ller, B.F., Fro
€berg, M.,
Hanarp, P., Hulteberg, C., Iverfeldt, E., Lundgren, J., Ro€ j, A., Svensson, H., Zinn, E.,
2016. Methane as Vehicle Fuel e a Well to Wheel Analysis (METDRIV) (No.
2016:06). f3 The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation
Fuels.
Cai, H., Burnham, A., Chen, R., Wang, M., 2017. Wells to wheels: environmental
implications of natural gas as a transportation fuel. Energy Pol. 109, 565e578.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.041.
Carlsson, M., Uldal, M., 2009. Substrathandbok Fo €r Biogasproduktion (No. SGC 200).
Svenskt Gastekniskt Center.
Cnpc, 2019. A Look at the Development Trend of Liquefaction Technology from
China’s LNG Plants.
Cooper, J., Hawkes, A., Balcombe, P., 2019. Life cycle environmental impacts of
natural gas drivetrains used in UK road freighting and impacts to UK emission
targets. Sci. Total Environ. 674, 482e493. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2019.04.091.
Cryo Pur, 2019. Cryo Pur - our solutions [WWW Document]. URL. http://www.
cryopur.com/en/our-solutions/#cryofuel (accessed 11.23.19).
Cryostar. Natural gas and small scale liquefaction applications. n.d., [WWW Docu-
ment]. URL. https://cryostar.tech/datas-pdf/booklet/en/StarLiteLNG.pdf
(accessed 9.12.18).
Daimler, 2018. Natural gas - freightliner trucks [WWW Document]. URL. https://
freightliner.com/trucks/natural-gas/ (accessed 9.12.18).
Davidsson, Å., Gruvberger, C., Christensen, T.H., Hansen, T.L., Jansen, J. la C., 2007.
Methane yield in source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste
Manag. 27, 406e414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.02.013.
De Klein, C., Novoa, R.S.A., Ogle, S., Smith, K.A., Rochette, P., Wirth, T.C.,
McConkey, B.G., Mosier, A., Rypdal, K., Walsh, M., Williams, S.A., 2006. IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4, Chapter 11:
N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea
Application. IPCC.
Eba, 2020. European Biogas Association Statistical Report: 2019 European Overivew.
Brussels, Belgium.
Edwards, R., Larive , J.-F., Rickeard, D., Hass, H., Lonza, L., Maas, H., 2014. Well-to-
wheels Report Version 4.a: JEC Well-To-Wheels Analysis : Well-To-Wheels
Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European
Context. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Eea, 2018. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Europe’s Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
EurObserv’Er, 2017. Biogas Barometer.
European Commission, 2016. Communication from the Commission to the Euro-
pean Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions - A European Strategy for Low-Emission
Mobility.
European Commission, 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renwable sources.
Off. J. Eur. Union 16e62.
Eurostat, 2019a. Shedding light on energy in the EU - a guided tour of energy
statistics [WWW Document]. URL. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/
infographs/energy/bloc-2c.html.
Eurostat, 2019b. Supply, transformation and consumption of renewables and wastes
[nrg_cb_rw] - biogas - Indigenous production [WWW Document]. URL. https://
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (accessed 7.8.19).
Gasum, 2019. Sweden’s northernmost liquefied gas filling station opens in
€
Ostersund [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.gasum.com/en/About-gasum/
for-the-media/News/2019/swedens-northernmost-liquefied-gas-filling-
station-opens-in-ostersund/ (accessed 11.15.19).
13
Gavrilova, O., Leip, A., Dong, H., MacDonald, J.D., Gomez Bravo, C.A., Amon, B.,
Barahona Rosales, R., del Prado, A., Aparecida de Lima, M., Oyhantҫabal, W., van
der Weerden, T.J., Widiawati, Y., 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories - Volume 4, Chapter 10: Emissions from Livestock and Manure
Management.
Goedkoop, M., Oele, M., Vieira, M., Leijting, J., Ponsioen, T., Meijer, E., 2016. SimaPro
Tutorial (No. 5.3). PRe .
Gustafsson, M., Anderberg, S., 2020. Dimensions and characteristics of biogas pol-
icies e modelling the European policy landscape. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
(accepted for publication).
Gustafsson, M., Cruz, I., Svensson, N., Karlsson, M., 2020a. Scenarios for upgrading
and distribution of compressed and liquefied biogas d energy, environmental,
and economic analysis. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2020.120473.
Gustafsson, M., Svensson, N., Eklund, M., Dahl Oberg, € J., Vehabovic, A., 2020b. Well-
to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions of heavy-duty transports depending on
electricity carbon intensity. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. (under review).
Hagman, L., Eklund, M., 2016. The role of biogas solutions in the circular and bio-
based economy. Biogas Res. Center.
Hagos, D.A., Ahlgren, E.O., 2018. Well-to-wheel assessment of natural gas vehicles
and their fuel supply infrastructures e perspectives on gas in transport in
Denmark. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 65, 14e35. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.trd.2018.07.018.
Hajji, A., Chahartaghi, M., Kahani, M., 2019. Thermodynamic analysis of natural gas
liquefaction process with propane pre-cooled mixed refrigerant process
(C3MR). Cryogenics 103, 102978. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cryogenics.2019.102978.
Hamelin, L., Naroznova, I., Wenzel, H., 2014. Environmental consequences of
different carbon alternatives for increased manure-based biogas. Appl. Energy
114, 774e782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.09.033.
He, T.B., Ju, Y.L., 2013. Design and optimization of natural gas liquefaction process by
utilizing gas pipeline pressure energy. Appl. Therm. Eng. 57, 1e6. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.03.044.
Heisch, P., 2012. Liquefied-to-compressed natural gas - opportunities and strategies.
In: Presented at the Gas Show 2012 Exhibition & Conference, Cryostar,
Warsawa.
Herbst, K., Mogensen, G., Huber, F., Østberg, M., Skjøth-Rasmussen, M.S., 2010.
Challenges in applied oxidation catalysis. Catal. Today 157, 297e302. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2010.01.043.
Ho€nig, V., Prochazka, P., Obergruber, M., Smutka, L., Ku cerova, V., 2019. Economic
and technological analysis of commercial LNG production in the EU. Energies
12, 1565. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12081565.
Ho€rmann, R., 2020. NGVA Europe: Already 17% Renewable Gas Used by the Mobility
Sector in Europe.
Igu, 2017. World LNG Report. International Gas Union.
Iso, 2006a. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -
Principles and Framework.
Iso, 2006b. ISO 14044:2006 Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -
Requirements and Guidelines.
Isuzu, 2018. Isuzu CNG trucks [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.isuzu.com.au/
truck-range/cng-trucks/ (accessed 9.12.18).
Iveco, 2015. Iveco eurocargo [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.iveco.com/uk/
products/pages/sustainability-new-eurocargo-2015-iveco.aspx (accessed
9.12.18).
Kampman, B., Leguijt, C., Scholten, T., Tallat-Kelpsaite, J., Brückmann, R.,
Maroulis, G., Lesschen, J.P., Meesters, K., Sikirica, N., Elbersen, B., 2016. Optimal
Use of Biogas from Waste Streams - an Assessment of the Potential of Biogas
from Digestion in the EU Beyond 2020. European Commission working group.
Karlsson, L.-E., 2018. Wa €rtsila
€.
Kirchmann, H., Witter, E., 1992. Composition of fresh, aerobic and anaerobic farm
animal dungs. Bioresour. Technol. 40, 137e142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-
8524(92)90199-8.
Lantz, M., 2013. Biogas in Sweden - Opportunities and Challenges from a Systems
Perspective (Doctoral Thesis). Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Lantz, M., Bjo € rnsson, L., 2016. Emissioner Av V€ axthusgaser Vid Produktion Och
Anva €ndning Av Biogas Från Go €dsel (No. 99). Miljo € - och energisystem, LTH,
Lunds universitet.
Lantz, M., Ekman, A., Bo €rjesson, P., 2009. Systemoptimerad Produktion Av For-
donsgas - En Miljo € - Och Energisystemanalys Av So €deråsens Biogasanla €ggning
(No. 69). Miljo €- och energisystem, LTH, Lunds universitet.
Larsson, M., Jansson, M., Gro €nkvist, S., Alvfors, P., 2015. Techno-economic assess-
ment of anaerobic digestion in a typical Kraft pulp mill to produce biomethane
for the road transport sector. J. Clean. Prod. 104, 460e467. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.054.
Ljung, E., Palm, O., Rodhe, L., 2012. Okad€ Acceptans Fo €r Biogo €dsel Inom Lantbruket.
JTI Swedish Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Technology, Uppsala.
Lng Bc, 2013. LNG Blue Corridors. EU FP7, GA No, p. 321592.
Lombardi, L., Francini, G., 2020. Techno-economic and environmental assessment of
the main biogas upgrading technologies. Renew. Energy 156, 440e458. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.04.083.
Lukehurst, C.T., Frost, P., Al Saedi, T., 2010. Utilisation of digestate from biogas plants
as biofertiliser. IEA Bioenergy Task 37.
Lyng, K.-A., Brekke, A., 2019. Environmental life cycle assessment of biogas as a fuel
for transport compared with alternative fuels. Energies 12, 532. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en12030532.
14 M. Gustafsson, N. Svensson / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123535
Ma, L., Hu, S., Qiu, M., Li, Q., Ji, Z., 2017. Energy consumption optimization of high
sulfur natural gas purification plant based on back propagation neural network
and genetic algorithms. Energy Procedia 105, 5166e5171. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1047.
Martín-Hern andez, E., Guerras, L.S., Martín, M., 2020. Optimal technology selection
for the biogas upgrading to biomethane. J. Clean. Prod. 267, 122032. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122032.
Mo€ller, K., Müller, T., 2012. Effects of anaerobic digestion on digestate nutrient
availability and crop growth: a review: digestate nutrient availability. Eng. Life
Sci. 12, 242e257. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201100085.
Moreno Ruiz, E., Valsasina, L., Brunner, F., Symeonidis, A., FitzGerald, D., Treyer, K.,
Borgault, G., Wernet, G., 2018. Documentation of Changes Implemented in
Ecoinvent Database v3.5. Ecoinvent, Zürich, Switzerland.
Natividad Pe rez-Camacho, M., Curry, R., Cromie, T., 2019. Life cycle environmental
impacts of biogas production and utilisation substituting for grid electricity,
natural gas grid and transport fuels. Waste Manag. 95, 90e101. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2019.05.045.
Olgemar, P., Partoft, A., 2017. Utv€ ardering av tekniska och marknadsma €ssiga
fo€ruts€attningar fo€ r produktion av flytande biogas - Ur en biogasproducents
perspektiv (Master thesis). Linko €pings Universitet, Linko
€ping.
Ou, X., Zhang, X., 2013. Life-cycle analyses of energy consumption and GHG emis-
sions of natural gas-based alternative vehicle fuels in China. J. Energy 1e8.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/268263, 2013.
P€
aa€kko€nen, A., Aro, K., Aalto, P., Konttinen, J., Kojo, M., 2019. The potential of bio-
methane in replacing fossil fuels in heavy transportda case study on Finland.
Sustainability 11, 4750. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174750.
Patterson, T., Esteves, S., Dinsdale, R., Guwy, A., 2011. An evaluation of the policy and
techno-economic factors affecting the potential for biogas upgrading for
transport fuel use in the UK. Energy Pol. 39, 1806e1816. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2011.01.017.
Persson, M., 2003. Utva €rdering Av Uppgraderingstekniker Fo €r Biogas (No. SGC 142).
Svenskt Gastekniskt Center.
Pettersson, A., Losciale, M., Liljemark, S., 2006. LCNG-studie - Mo €jligheter Med LNG I
Fordonsgasfo € rso
€rjningen I Sverige (No. SGC 167). Svenskt Gastekniskt Center.
Pfau, S.F., Hagens, J.E., Dankbaar, B., 2017. Biogas between renewable energy and
bio-economy policiesdopportunities and constraints resulting from a dual role.
Energy Sustain. Soc. 7, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-017-0120-5.
PRe, 2014. SimaPro Database. Manual - Methods Library.
Prussi, M., Padella, M., Conton, M., Postma, E.D., Lonza, L., 2019. Review of tech-
nologies for biomethane production and assessment of Eu transport share in
2030. J. Clean. Prod. 222, 565e572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.271.
Raj, R., Suman, R., Ghandehariun, S., Kumar, A., Tiwari, M.K., 2016. A techno-eco-
nomic assessment of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) production facilities in
Western Canada. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 18, 140e152. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.seta.2016.10.005.
Rasi, S., Veijanen, A., Rintala, J., 2007. Trace compounds of biogas from different
biogas production plants. Energy 32, 1375e1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2006.10.018.
Scania, 2017. URL. https://www.scania.com/group/en/long-awaited-gas-giant/
(accessed 6.13.18).
Shanmugam, K., Tysklind, M., Upadhyayula, V.K.K., 2018. Use of liquefied bio-
methane (LBM) as a vehicle fuel for road freight transportation: a case study
evaluating environmental performance of using LBM for operation of tractor
trailers. In: Presented at the 25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference,
Copenhagen. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.133.
Siemens, 2016. Gas Turbine SGT-750 Factsheet.
Sims, R., Taylor, M., Saddler, J., Mabee, W., 2008. From 1st- to 2nd-Generation
Biofuel Technologies - an Overview of Current Industry and RD&D Activities.
Int. Energy Agency.
Sinclair, A., Litterick, A., Crooks, B., Chambers, B., 2013. Optimising the Application
of Bulky Organic Fertilisers (No. TN650). Scotland’s Rural College, Edinburgh.
Smajla, I., Karasalihovi c Sedlar, D., Drljaca, B., Juki
c, L., 2019. Fuel switch to LNG in
heavy truck traffic. Energies 12, 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030515.
Songhurst, B., 2018. LNG Plant Cost Reduction 2014-18 (No. OIES NG137). The Ox-
ford Institute for Energy Studies.
Speirs, J., Balcombe, P., Blomerus, P., Stettler, M., Achurra-Gonzalez, P., Woo, M.,
Ainalis, D., Cooper, J., Sharafian, A., Merida, W., Crow, D., Giarola, S., Shah, N.,
Brandon, N., Hawkes, A., 2020. Natural gas fuel and greenhouse gas emissions in
trucks and ships. Prog. Energy 2, 012002. https://doi.org/10.1088/2516-1083/
ab56af.
Speirs, J., Balcombe, P., Johnson, E., Martin, J., Brandon, N., Hawkes, A., 2018.
A greener gas grid: what are the options. Energy Pol. 118, 291e297. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.03.069.
Stettler, M., Woo, M., Ainalis, D., Achurra-Gonzalez, P., Speirs, J., 2019. Natural Gas as
a Fuel for Heavy Goods Vehicles. Centre for Transport Studies & Sustainable Gas
Institute, Imperial College London, London.
Tan, H., Zhao, Q., Sun, N., Li, Y., 2016. Proposal and design of a natural gas lique-
faction process recovering the energy obtained from the pressure reducing
stations of high-pressure pipelines. Cryogenics 80, 82e90. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cryogenics.2016.09.010.
Tufvesson, L.M., Lantz, M., Bo €rjesson, P., 2013. Environmental performance of biogas
produced from industrial residues including competition with animal feed e
life-cycle calculations according to different methodologies and standards.
J. Clean. Prod. 53, 214e223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.005.
Tybirk, K., Solberg, F.E., Wennerberg, P., Wiese, F., Danielsen, C.G., 2018. Biogas
Liquefaction and Use of Liquid Biomethane. Status on the Market and Tech-
nologies Available for LNG/LBG/LBM of Relevance for Biogas Actors in 2017.
Usama, M.N., Sherine, A., Shuhaimi, M., 2011. Technology review of natural gas
liquefaction processes. J. Appl. Sci. 11, 3541e3546. https://doi.org/10.3923/
jas.2011.3541.3546.
Volvo Trucks, 2017. URL. https://www.volvotrucks.se/sv-se/trucks/volvo-fh/volvo-
fh-lng.html (accessed 6.13.18).
Walsh, J.J., Jones, D.L., Edwards-Jones, G., Williams, A.P., 2012. Replacing inorganic
fertilizer with anaerobic digestate may maintain agricultural productivity at
less environmental cost. Z. Pflanzenern€ ahr. Bodenk. 175, 840e845. https://
doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201200214.
Weidema, B.P., Bauer, C., Hischier, R., Mutel, C., Nemecek, T., Reinhard, J.,
Vadenbo, C.O., Wernet, G., 2013. Overview and Methodology - Data Quality
Guideline for the Ecoinvent Database Version 3 (No. 1(v3)). Ecoinvent.
Westlund, Å., 2019. Mer Biogas! Fo €r Ett Hållbart Sverige (No. SOU 2019:63).
Biogasmarknadsutredningen.
YCharts, 2019. European union natural gas import price [WWW Document]. URL.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/europe_natural_gas_price (accessed 11.5.19).
Yoon, J., Lee, H., Oh, S., Lee, S., Choi, K., 2009. Characteristics of Cascade and C3MR
Cycle on Natural Gas Liquefaction Process. World Academy of Science, Engi-
neering and Technology.