Synthetic natural gas in the private heating sector in Germany: match or mismatch between production costs and consumer willingness to pay?

IF 4.6 3区 工程技术 Q2 ENERGY & FUELS
Benedikt Rilling
{"title":"Synthetic natural gas in the private heating sector in Germany: match or mismatch between production costs and consumer willingness to pay?","authors":"Benedikt Rilling","doi":"10.1186/s13705-024-00459-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The residential heating sector in many European countries requires a fundamental transformation if it is to become climate neutral. Besides the introduction of efficiency measures and updating heating systems, scholars and practitioners consider replacing fossil fuels in existing heating systems a viable approach. Drop-in renewable gases such as biomethane and synthetic natural gas (SNG) cause considerably fewer carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions than natural gas and can be used in natural gas boilers, the dominant heating system in many European countries. To move the ongoing debate around e-fuels forward, this study reports on a Discrete Choice Experiment with 512 respondents in Germany that analyzed consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for SNG. I build on these insights by comparing WTP to the production costs, making evidence-based decision-making possible.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>The results show that consumers prefer renewable gases over natural gas. Comparing the two types of renewable gases, SNG and biomethane, reveals that consumers clearly favor the latter despite the criticism it has come under in the last 10–15 years. Consumers show a surprisingly high WTP for increasing shares of SNG, with premia of 40 to almost 70% over a natural gas-based tariff. Comparing production costs to the WTP reveals that only tariffs with small shares of SNG (5% and 10%) can be offered at cost-covering prices.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Given the urgent need for a fundamental transition of the residential heating sector, marketers and policymakers should consider carefully whether it is worth channeling a rather unknown and expensive product like SNG into the voluntary market for heating gas, especially as biomethane is already established in the market and clearly a cheaper and more popular alternative.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":539,"journal":{"name":"Energy, Sustainability and Society","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://energsustainsoc.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s13705-024-00459-y","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy, Sustainability and Society","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13705-024-00459-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The residential heating sector in many European countries requires a fundamental transformation if it is to become climate neutral. Besides the introduction of efficiency measures and updating heating systems, scholars and practitioners consider replacing fossil fuels in existing heating systems a viable approach. Drop-in renewable gases such as biomethane and synthetic natural gas (SNG) cause considerably fewer carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than natural gas and can be used in natural gas boilers, the dominant heating system in many European countries. To move the ongoing debate around e-fuels forward, this study reports on a Discrete Choice Experiment with 512 respondents in Germany that analyzed consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for SNG. I build on these insights by comparing WTP to the production costs, making evidence-based decision-making possible.

Results

The results show that consumers prefer renewable gases over natural gas. Comparing the two types of renewable gases, SNG and biomethane, reveals that consumers clearly favor the latter despite the criticism it has come under in the last 10–15 years. Consumers show a surprisingly high WTP for increasing shares of SNG, with premia of 40 to almost 70% over a natural gas-based tariff. Comparing production costs to the WTP reveals that only tariffs with small shares of SNG (5% and 10%) can be offered at cost-covering prices.

Conclusions

Given the urgent need for a fundamental transition of the residential heating sector, marketers and policymakers should consider carefully whether it is worth channeling a rather unknown and expensive product like SNG into the voluntary market for heating gas, especially as biomethane is already established in the market and clearly a cheaper and more popular alternative.

德国私人供暖部门使用的合成天然气:生产成本与消费者支付意愿之间是匹配还是不匹配?
背景欧洲许多国家的住宅供暖行业要想实现气候中和,就必须进行根本性转变。除了采取提高效率的措施和更新供热系统外,学者和从业人员还认为在现有供热系统中替代化石燃料是一种可行的方法。生物甲烷和合成天然气(SNG)等无须添加的可再生气体比天然气产生的二氧化碳(CO2)排放量要少得多,可用于天然气锅炉(许多欧洲国家的主要供热系统)。为了推动正在进行的有关电子燃料的讨论,本研究报告了一项在德国进行的离散选择实验,该实验有 512 名受访者参加,分析了消费者对 SNG 的偏好和支付意愿(WTP)。在此基础上,我将 WTP 与生产成本进行了比较,从而使基于证据的决策成为可能。结果结果表明,与天然气相比,消费者更青睐可再生气体。比较两种类型的可再生气体,即替代天然气和生物甲烷,结果显示,尽管生物甲烷在过去 10-15 年中饱受批评,但消费者显然更青睐后者。消费者对增加替代天然气份额的 WTP 值出奇地高,比天然气电价高出 40% 到近 70%。将生产成本与 WTP 进行比较后发现,只有少量替代天然气(5% 和 10%)的电价才能达到覆盖成本的价格。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Energy, Sustainability and Society
Energy, Sustainability and Society Energy-Energy Engineering and Power Technology
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
4.10%
发文量
45
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Energy, Sustainability and Society is a peer-reviewed open access journal published under the brand SpringerOpen. It covers topics ranging from scientific research to innovative approaches for technology implementation to analysis of economic, social and environmental impacts of sustainable energy systems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信