Drivers for and barriers to biogas use in manufacturing, road transport and shipping: a demand-side perspective

Figures & data

Figure 1. Biogas use in Sweden, 2005–2017. [20].

Table 1. Description of the companies studied and positions of interviewees.

Company	Line of business	Position of interviewee	Connection to biogas
Manufacturing
Agroetanol	Biorefinery (ethanol)	Sustainability strategist	Biogas from own wastewater treatment plant will replace some liquefied petroleum gas in 2018
Arvid Nordquist	Food manufacturer (coffee) and retailer	Sustainability manager	Uses biogas CBG from the gas grid instead of liquefied petroleum gas since 2017, for coffee roasters
Svenska brasserier	Restaurant group	Sustainability manager	Uses biogas from the gas grid instead of compressed natural gas since 2016, for stoves
Toyota Material Handling	Forklift manufacturer	Sustainability manager - Purchasing manager for transports and logistics - Project leader for biogas substitution	Liquefied biomethane will replace liquefied petroleum gas in 2019, for their painting processes
Road transport
Arla	Produces dairy products	Fleet manager	Uses mostly RME and HVO as fuel, but has also invested in ED95-lorries
IKEA	Furniture retailer	Global sustainability manager - Global sustainability developer	Parts of their fleet uses HVO
Svenska retursystem	Offers reusable pallets for groceries	Sustainable development manager	Parts of the transports they buy use HVO
Shipping
Stena Line	Short sea ferries	Head of sustainability	Moving partly toward electricity; also have a methanol ferry
Styrsöbolaget	Archipelago transport	Technical inspector	Parts of their fleet use low-blended 10% RME, and an electric hybrid ferry has been ordered
Thunbolagen	Freight ships	Deputy managing director	Moving partly toward liquefied natural gas ships
Wallenius Marine	Freight ships	Vice president and chief operating officer	Moving toward wind power and electricity

RME - rapeseed methyl ester; HVO - hydrogenated vegetable oil; ED95 - ethanoldiesel 95.

Table 2. The drivers and barriers experienced by the companies in the studied sectors.

	Manufacturing	Road transport	Shipping
	4 companies	3 companies	4 companies
Drivers
Environmental actions are important for the company	Agroetanol Arvid Nordquist Svenska brasserier Toyota Material Handling	Arla Foods IKEA Svenska retursystem	Wallenius Marine Stena Line
Taking market shares by being ‘the environmental alternative’	Agroetanol Arvid Nordquist Svenska brasserier	Arla Foods IKEA Svenska retursystem	Thunbolagen Stena Line
Family business	Arvid Nordquist Svenska brasserier	–	Wallenius Marine
Contract requirements	–	–	Styrsöbolaget
Internal biogas production	Agroetanol	–	–
Barriers
The unreliability and short-sightedness of the current policies	Arvid Nordquist	Arla Foods Svenska retursystem	–
Policies reward other fuels more	Toyota Material Handling		Stena Line Wallenius Marine
Biogas is expensive	Svenska brasserier	–	Stena Line Thunbolagen Wallenius Marine
Lack of suitable biogas	Toyota Material Handling (liquefied)	Arla Foods IKEA	Stena Line Thunbolagen Wallenius Marine
Lack of infrastructure	Arvid Nordquist Svenska brasserier	–	–
Not compatible with current system	Agroetanol Toyota Material Handling	Arla Foods Svenska retursystem	Stena Line Wallenius Marine
Existing biogas technology is not suitable	–	Svenska retursystem	Styrsöbolaget Thunbolagen
Contract requirements	–	–	Styrsöbolaget
Previous bad experience with methane gas	–	Arla Foods	–

Table 3. Summary of identified drivers for and barriers to the diffusion of biogas in the manufacturing, shipping, and road transport sectors. The drivers and barriers confirmed by our results are presented in bold.

Drivers
Level of analysis	Sub-categories
System level	Steady demand for biogas Existence of biogas production facilities Existence of gas grids Existence of fueling stations Subsidies (tax exemptions, exemptions from parking fees, congestion fees, subsidies for production) National, regional and local climate goals
Actor level	Economic gains Non-economic gains Stakeholder requirements Existence of biogas production facilities Contributing to environmental goals at different societal levels Improving social status Branding Green profiling Values/norms
Barriers
Level of analysis	Sub-categories
System level	Dominance of fossil fuel incumbents Lack of physical infrastructure Lack of biogas Lack of competence, capability, resources or capacity among technology developers Investment costs, risks and returns Availability and access to capital Unfavorable policies Stakeholder interactions
Actor level	Lack of knowledge Dissatisfactory experience Limited financial resources Incompatibility with physical resources Lack of social capital Values/norms Characteristics of potential adopter Strategies of potential adopter

Swedish Energy Agency. Produktion och användning av biogas och rötrester år 2017 [Production and use of biogas and digestate 2017]. 2018

 Google Scholar