Assessing Energy Consumption, Carbon Emissions, and Costs in Biomass-to-Gas Processes: A Life-Cycle Assessment Approach

Abstract

China has a huge potential for biomass utilization. Converting low-grade biomass into high-quality hydrogen and natural gas is of great significance in promoting the utilization of biomass resources and the achievement of carbon reduction goals. Based on the data of biomass collection, transportation, power generation, hydrogen production and gas production stages in China, this paper constructs a multi-chain hybrid whole-life process evaluation model for “electricity to gas” and comprehensively compares the energy consumption, carbon emission and cost of the two chains of “hydrogen production from biomass power generation” and “methane production from biomass power generation”. We comprehensively compare the energy consumption, carbon emissions and costs of biomass-to-hydrogen and biomass-to-methane technologies. Biomass natural gas is found to have significant advantages in terms of energy consumption, carbon emissions and economics compared to biomass hydrogen production. In order to promote the development of the biomass “electricity to gas” industry in China, this paper proposes that PEM electrolysis tanks can be used for hydrogen production, and the distance from the biomass feedstock collection to the hydrogen production chemical park should be optimized to reduce the whole-life-cycle cost. Biomass natural gas can buy time for the development of China’s hydrogen industry and infrastructure construction.

1. Introduction

In order to realize the Paris Agreement’s vision of a “1.5 °C” temperature rise, all countries have formulated active policies to control carbon emissions. The Government of China has stated that it expects to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, for which a range of “carbon-negative” technologies must be fully developed and utilized. Biomass is of interest to governments and researchers because it exhibits important “carbon-negative” properties during photosynthesis, hydrogen production and methanation. According to statistics, China’s annual new biomass generation is about 460 million tons of standard coal [1]. However, the actual utilization of biomass energy in China is still at 10% [2]. At this level of energy grade, biomass has a low energy density and therefore requires energy conversion from low-grade to high-grade energy. It can be seen that China has huge potential and space for biomass utilization. By applying clean energy technologies, making full use of China’s biomass stock and incremental capacity, and accelerating the low-carbonization of biomass, we will effectively promote the rapid realization of China’s carbon reduction goals.

In the context of the life-cycle assessment of biomass technologies, according to existing studies, biomass power generation has a higher carbon reduction potential compared to wind and solar power, and the whole-life-cycle carbon emissions of biomass power-generation technologies are about 42–85 g/(kW-h) [3]. Wang (2022) et al. evaluated the economics and emissions of three power-generation methods, namely biogas, straw, and gas using a full life-cycle approach and found that biomass power-generation technology does not have an advantage in terms of economics but has significant emission reduction benefits [4]. Lin et al. (2008) conducted an LCA for a 25 MW straw direct combustion power-generation system and found that solid waste emissions from biomass direct combustion power generation were more severe than biomass gasification power generation [5]. Bu et al. (2015) fused the LCA method with hierarchical analysis to assess the environmental impacts and resource consumption of biomass direct-fired power-generation technology and found that the photochemical pollution of this technology is most significant [6]. Elfallah (2024) provided a full life-cycle scale overview of 58 biomass pyrolysis processes [7]. Cheng-kang Gao (2019) utilized the LCA methodology for a technical comparison of biomass and wind power systems in different geographic regions [8]. Xue et al. (2024) analyzed the environmental impact assessment of methane production from the direct combustion of two types of biomass—cornstalks and rice straw—based on a life-cycle analysis [9].

In the extraction and utilization of biomass resources, Zheng et al. (2010) predicted pollutant emissions from straw burning in Henan using satellite-detected data on summer straw burning in China and integrating parameters such as grain yield, grain-to-straw ratio, and emission factors [10]. Xu et al. (2023) evaluated the advantages of biomass direct combustion power-generation technology in terms of GHG emission reduction [11]. Shafie S M (2012) Assessment of Global Warming Impacts of Biomass Power Generation Technologies in Phases [12]. Xu et al. (2021) evaluated the economics of hydrogen generation from paper sludge [13]. Fu et al. (2020) studied GHG emission accounting methods for biomass at different levels of the country, enterprise, and product [14]. Sun (2023) and Cao (2022) found that biomass can effectively increase the utilization of biomass energy and can effectively save the cost of energy utilization by converting it into methane gas [15,16].

Summarizing the above findings, the researcher has fully justified the importance of biomass for low-carbon emission reduction. However, limited by the low energy density of biomass itself, there is a need to improve the utilization scenario of biomass through power generation and conversion. China has a huge potential for biomass resource utilization, and converting low-energy-density biomass into other energy carriers with high energy density is an important way to improve the efficiency of biomass energy utilization and promote the development of the biomass industry. However, which energy carrier performs better in terms of energy efficiency, carbon emissions and economics at the full life-cycle scale will significantly affect the scale-up of the biomass industry. In terms of technology evaluation, researchers have more LCA evaluation results for the biomass power-generation process, and the evaluation of environmental impact is dominated. Moreover, based on the conclusions of the full life-cycle assessment, and due to the non-uniformity of the boundary demarcation, the comparability of the evaluation of biomass technology still needs to be improved. Based on the data of biomass energy collection, transportation, power generation, hydrogen production and gas production stages in China, this paper constructs a multi-chain hybrid full life-cycle “electricity to gas” process evaluation model, comprehensively compares hydrogen production from biomass power generation (the first “electricity to gas” technology scenario) and methane production from biomass power generation (the second “electricity to gas” technology scenario), conducts a life-cycle techno-economic evaluation of the two chains, taking into account the factors of energy consumption, carbon emissions and costs, and finally determines the applicability of the carbon-negative technology for biomass in China. This research is of academic and practical significance to promote the dual-carbon strategy, as well as the resourceful reuse of biomass.

2. Methodology

2.1. LCA Boundary

The life-cycle assessment method is a kind of technical assessment method for the whole process of collecting raw materials and resources from nature, processing them into products through transportation and a number of processes, and finally returning them to nature through product “metabolism”—that is, realizing natural resources from the cradle to the grave in the sense of life. Depending on the boundaries of the division, there are different evaluation standards for the measurement of the whole life cycle. In this study, we chose the “total product life cycle” evaluation method oriented to 1 kg of product gas, linking the three parts of “natural chain layer → technological chain layer → product layer” (as shown in Figure 1). The methodology consists of several parts, including the establishment of evaluation boundaries and objectives, data collection and the preparation of a life-cycle inventory, and the analysis and synthesis of judgments [17].

2.2. Evaluation Objective

The purpose of the technology evaluation in this study is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and costs of two technology chains: biomass-to-hydrogen and biomass-to-methane. The selected functional unit is 1 kg H₂ (20 Mpa, 25 °C).

Specifically, it includes the following five stages: biomass acquisition, biomass transportation, direct biomass combustion for power generation, hydrogen production by water electrolysis, and methane synthesis.

The economic measurements conducted in this research are based on the raw material and energy price calculation base for March 2024 in Guangdong Province, as shown in

Table 1. Calculation base for raw material and energy prices in Guangdong Province (March 2024) [18].

Energy	Gas/ USD·m−3	Diesel/ USD·L−1	Grid Power/ USD·kWh−1	Biomass Electricity/ USD·kWh−1	Stalk/USD·t	Cornstalks/USD·t
prices	0.6	1.1	0.1	0.1	41.7	52.8

. Carbon emission factors for major substances and energy sources are shown in

Table 2. Carbon emission factors of different energy varieties in Guangdong Province (March 2024) [19,20].

Energy Type	Carbon Emission Factors
diesel	72,600 kg CO2/TJ
grid power	0.808 t CO2e/MWh
Stalk/cornstalks	1.351 kg CO2/kg
biomass electricity	0

.

3. Data Collection and Inventory Analysis

The biomass acquisition stage is divided into two processes: agricultural cultivation and biomass collection (as shown in

Table 3. Life-cycle inventory data for the biomass acquisition phase [21].

	Segment	Energy-Consuming Varieties	Energy Input/MJ	Emission Projects	Greenhouse Gas Emissions/kg CO2 e	Costs/USD
Agricultural cultivation	mineral exploitation	diesel	0.341	CO2	0.029	0.073
	mineral transportation	diesel	0.555	CO2	0.047	0.118
	urea production	electricity	16.615	CO2	2.681	2.769
	P2O5 production	electricity	0.869	CO2	0.141	0.145
	K2O production	electricity	0.187	CO2	0.030	0.031
	pesticide production	electricity	0.404	CO2	0.065	0.067
	agricultural transportation	diesel	0.272	CO2	0.023	0.058
			0.000	CH4	2.994	0.000
	crop cultivation	diesel	2.805	N2O	0.269	0.596
			0.000	CO2 absorption	−1.311	0.000
Biomass collection	mechanical collection	electricity	0.407	CO2	0.066	0.068
	vehicle transportation	diesel	6.160	CO2	0.516	1.310

).

In order to obtain 1 kg of H₂ (20 Mpa, 25 °C), it is initially necessary to consume 0.34 MJ of diesel-driven excavation equipment for the extraction of mineral resources, resulting in a carbon emission of 0.029 kg of CO₂ e. The carbon emissions from the excavation of the mineral resources are estimated to be about 1.5 kg of H₂ (20 Mpa, 25 °C), which is the highest in the world. The transportation of mineral resources by trucks to the plant for the production of chemicals for agricultural cultivation used 0.56 MJ of diesel fuel, resulting in carbon emissions of 0.047 kg CO₂ e. Driving 16.6 MJ of electricity for urea production using 0.87 MJ of electricity for P₂O₅ production, 0.19 MJ of electricity for K₂O production, and 0.4 MJ of electricity for pesticide production leads to carbon emissions of 2.918 kg CO₂ e. The use of 0.27 MJ of diesel fuel to transport the produced chemicals to the farmland for crop cultivation resulted in a carbon emission of 0.023 kg CO₂ e. The production of the chemical was transported to the farmland for crop cultivation. Crop cultivation was carried out using 2.81 MJ diesel-driven tillage machinery. During the production of agricultural products, the consumption of chemical fertilizers and the photosynthesis of the plants themselves resulted in emissions of 3.0 kg CO₂ e of CH₄, 0.27 kg CO₂ e of N₂O, and 1.31 kg CO₂ e of uptake. The total amount of energy input generated during the agricultural cultivation was 22.05 MJ, and the net CO₂ emission was 4.97 kg CO₂ e, generating a cost of USD 3.86. The use of 0.41 MJ of electric power to drive a mechanical device to collect scattered straw, corn stalks, and other crops resulted in 0.066 kg CO₂ e of carbon emissions. The use of a 6.16 MJ diesel-driven van to concentrate the collected biomass resulted in a carbon emission of 0.516 kg CO₂ e. The total energy input generated during the biomass acquisition phase was 28.61 MJ, and the net CO₂ emissions were 5.55 kg CO₂ e, resulting in a cost of USD 5.24.

The biomass storage and transportation phase include both biomass storage as well as vehicle transportation (as shown in

Table 4. Biomass storage and transportation phase life-cycle inventory data [22].

Biomass storage and transportation	Biomass storage	segment	energy-consuming varieties	energy input/MJ	emission projects	greenhouse gas emissions/kg CO2 e	costs/USD
		Biomass storage	electricity	0.423	CO2	0.068	0.071
	Biomass transportation	Vehicle transportation	diesel	6.160	CO2	0.516	1.310

).

The collected biomass is concentrated and pulverized. In this process, 0.42 MJ of electricity is consumed, resulting in 0.068 kg CO₂ e of carbon emissions. The pulverized high-density biomass was transported to the biomass direct-fired power plant, a process that consumed 6.616 MJ of diesel fuel and resulted in carbon emissions of 0.516 kg CO₂ e. The process of transporting pulverized high-density biomass to the biomass direct-fired power plant was a major source of carbon emissions. During the biomass storage and transportation phase, a total of 6.58 MJ of energy was consumed and the net CO₂ emissions were 0.585 kg CO₂ e, resulting in a cost of USD 1.38.

In the direct biomass combustion stage of power generation, 30.42 kg of rice straw and 30.42 kg of corn stalks were consumed to obtain the target product of 1 kg of H₂ (20 Mpa, 25 °C), resulting in a total of 80.2 kg of CO₂ e of carbon emissions and incurring a cost of USD 2.95 (as shown in

Table 5. Life-cycle inventory data for the direct biomass combustion phase of electricity generation [9].

direct-fired biomass power generation	segment	energy-consuming varieties	energy input/MJ	emission projects	greenhouse gas emissions/kg CO2 e	costs/USD
	direct-fired biomass power generation	rice straw	30.42	CO2	40.1	1.3
		cornstalks	30.42	CO2	40.1	1.65

).

Hydrogen production with an alkaline electrolyzer requires 55 kWh of electricity to obtain 1 kg of H₂ (Yu et al., 2021). The energy consumption of the input electricity is 198 MJ, and there are no greenhouse gas emissions or costs incurred in this phase (as shown in

Table 6. Life-cycle inventory data for the hydrogen from electrolyzed water phase [23].

Hydrogen production from electrolytic water	segment	energy-consuming varieties	energy input/MJ	emission projects	greenhouse gas emissions/kg CO2 e	costs/USD
	Hydrogen production from electrolytic water	electricity	198	CO2	0	0

Note: The electricity required for electrolysis of water comes from biomass power generation.

).

Synthesizing methane is a process that uses hydrogen and CO₂ as feedstocks to produce CH₄ and H₂O and is driven by electricity in the chemical reaction shown in (1):

$$4{\mathrm{H}}_2+{\mathrm{CO}}_2\to {\mathrm{CH}}_4+2{\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{O}$$

(1)

For every 1 kg of CH₄ produced, 2.743 kg of CO₂ is required, corresponding to 0.5 kg of H₂, and 20.11 kWh of electricity is consumed (including electricity for hydrogen production) [24]. The obtained 1 kg of H₂ (20 Mpa, 25 °C) reacts with 5.5 kg of CO₂ in a synthesized methane reaction, using 144.8 MJ of biomass electricity to obtain 2 kg of CH₄ (as shown in

Table 7. Synthetic methane phase life-cycle inventory data [24].

synthetic methane	segment	energy-consuming varieties	energy input/MJ	emission projects	greenhouse gas emissions/kg CO2 e	costs/USD
	synthetic methane	CO2	5.5 kg	——	——	0
		biomass electricity	144.8 MJ	CO2	0	2.53
		hydrogen	1 kg	CO2	0	0

Note: The electricity required to synthesize methane comes from biomass power generation.

).

4. Discussion

4.1. Comprehensive Life-Cycle Comparison of Biomass-to-Gas Technologies

A comparison of whole-life-cycle energy consumption, carbon emissions and costs for the production of 1 kg of product is shown in

Table 8. Life-cycle energy consumption, carbon emissions and cost of hydrogen production from biomass (1 kg hydrogen).

Biomass to Hydrogen	Energy Consumption (MJ)	Carbon Emissions (kg CO2 e)	Costs (USD)
Biomass acquisition	28.62	5.55	5.24
Biomass storage and transportation	6.58	0.58	1.38
direct-fired biomass power generation	0.00	80.20	2.95
Hydrogen production from electrolytic water	198.00	0.00	0.00
total	233.20	86.34	9.57

and

Table 9. Life-cycle energy consumption, carbon emissions and cost of biomass to natural gas (1 kg of natural gas).

Biomass to Natural Gas	Energy Consumption (MJ)	Carbon Emissions (kg CO2 e)	Costs (USD)
Biomass acquisition	14.31	2.78	2.62
Biomass storage and transportation	3.29	0.29	0.69
direct-fired biomass power generation	0.00	40.10	1.48
Hydrogen production from electrolytic water	99.00	0.00	0.00
Synthetic methane	72.40	−2.75	1.27
total	189.00	40.42	6.05

. It can be seen that the whole-life-cycle technology chain of “biomass → electricity → H₂” consumes a total of 233.2 MJ of energy, leads to 86.34 kg of carbon emissions of CO₂ e, and generates a cost of 9.57 USD (as shown in Table 8).

In comparison to synthetic methane, the full life-cycle energy consumption of “biomass → electricity → H₂ → CH₄” is 189 MJ, which is 19% less than that of biomass-to-hydrogen. The whole-life-cycle carbon emission of natural gas from biomass is 40.42 kg CO₂ e, which is about 47% of that of hydrogen from biomass. The full life-cycle cost of natural gas from biomass is USD 6.05, which is 36.8% lower than hydrogen from biomass (as shown in Table 9). Evidently, for the two biomass-to-gas scenarios, biomass-to-gas has significant advantages in terms of energy consumption, carbon emissions and costs from a life-cycle perspective.

4.1.1. Energy Decomposition of Two Bioelectric Gas Production Technologies

In terms of energy consumption structure, the most dominant energy-consuming stage of hydrogen production from biomass is hydrogen production from electrolyzed water, which accounts for 85% of the overall, followed by the biomass acquisition stage, which accounts for 12% (as shown in Figure 2a). The most significant energy-consuming phase of biomass-to-natural gas production occurs in the water electrolysis phase, which accounts for 52% of the overall total, followed by the synthesis of methanol phase, which accounts for 38% (as shown in Figure 2b).

From the analysis of the energy consumption structure, it can be seen that the optimization of the electrolysis of water-to-hydrogen process is an important initiative to reduce the biomass full life-cycle electricity to gas process. If the PEM electrolyzer scheme with higher energy efficiency is used, the full life-cycle energy consumption of hydrogen production from biomass can be reduced by 12.4%, and that of natural gas production from biomass can be reduced by 7.7%, as measured according to the literature [23]. The current alkaline electrolyzer technology in China has been widely used in chemical and hydrogen production scenarios and has a higher level of technological maturity. The PEM electrolyzer technology is still in the demonstration application stage, and the cost of hydrogen production is higher. As PEM electrolyzer technology achieves large-scale application, a PEM electrolyzer can be used for process substitution to further reduce the whole-life-cycle energy consumption of biomass gas production.

4.1.2. Carbon Decomposition of Two Bioelectricity-to-Gas Technologies

In terms of carbon emissions, the biomass direct-fired power-generation stage is the largest part of the carbon emissions of biomass hydrogen production, accounting for 93% of the overall, mainly from the CO₂ emissions generated by the biomass combustion process, followed by the biomass acquisition stage, accounting for 6% of the overall (as shown in Figure 3).

In the carbon emission structure of biomass to natural gas, the “synthesis of methane” stage reduces carbon emissions by 6.4% for the whole-life-cycle process of biomass to natural gas due to the use of CO₂ as a feedstock, which has the effect of “sequestering” carbon. The next-largest carbon emission is from direct biomass combustion for power generation, which accounts for 93% of the total (as shown in Figure 4).

It is evident that carbon sequestration by synthetic methane is not significant. Biomass direct-fired power generation is the most important reason for the large carbon emissions of the two biomass-to-gas technologies. If direct biomass combustion power generation is replaced with biomass gasification power generation, according to the literature [22], the carbon emission of the biomass gasification power-generation process is 0.59 kg CO₂/kWh. In order to obtain 1 kg H₂, the carbon emission of this stage is 32.45 kg CO₂. The carbon emission of both hydrogen from biomass and natural gas from biomass can be reduced by about 55%. For China’s biomass industry, biomass direct combustion power-generation technology is very mature, has entered the stage of market-scale development, and is more applicable to centralized large-scale power generation. Biomass gasification power-generation technology is still in the demonstration stage and cannot be applied to large-scale, centralized biomass power-generation scenarios.

4.1.3. Cost Decomposition of Two Bioelectricity-to-Gas Technologies

In terms of cost, 55% of the cost of hydrogen production from biomass occurs at the biomass acquisition stage, followed by the biomass direct-fired power-generation stage, which accounts for 31% of the total, and the biomass storage and transportation stage, which accounts for 14% of the total (as shown in Figure 5a). Moreover, 43% of the costs of biomass to natural gas are incurred at the biomass acquisition stage, followed by 24% at the direct biomass-to-power stage and 21% at the synthesized methane stage (as shown in Figure 5b).

It can be seen that reducing the cost of biomass collection is the key to promoting biomass industrialization. Since the current biomass resources in China are scattered, the collection and transportation mechanization is low, and the collection and transportation costs are high, which makes the additional cost of biomass resources increase. Thus, we should broaden the channels of biomass feedstock, develop the second generation of biomass energy based on cellulosic feedstocks, improve the utilization rate of biomass feedstock, reduce the distance between the biomass power plant and the collection of biomass feedstocks, and reduce biomass collection by using multiple means to reduce the biomass collection cost of biomass collection.

4.2. Current Challenges and Future Perspectives for the Development of the Biomass “Electricity to Gas” Industry in China

The current challenges and future prospects of biomass power generation for hydrogen and methane production are summarized below.

(1)

Utilization of energy technology

At the level of biomass industry development, hydrogen and natural gas play an important role as energy carriers. Compared to biomass power generation, hydrogen and natural gas are able to meet the needs of users for long-term, large-scale energy storage and energy use [25].

Therefore, biomass “electricity to gas” technology is an important extension and supplement to biomass power-generation technology.

By comparing the whole-life-cycle technology chain of hydrogen from biomass and natural gas from biomass, it is found that natural gas from biomass has obvious advantages in terms of energy consumption, carbon emissions and costs. China is rich in biomass resources, and biomass direct-fired power-generation technology is very mature, matching the higher technological maturity of alkaline electrolyzers for hydrogen production [26]. To improve energy conversion efficiency, reduce the cold start time of the electrolyzer equipment, and improve the responsiveness of hydrogen production from electrolyzed water to fluctuating power, a PEM electrolyzer can be considered and employed for hydrogen production.

(2)

Reduction of carbon emissions

According to this paper, it was found that the full life-cycle energy consumption of biomass to natural gas is 189 MJ, which is 19% less than that of biomass to hydrogen, and the carbon emission is 40.42 kg CO₂ e, which is about 47% of that of biomass to hydrogen. It can be seen that at the level of reducing carbon emissions, the use of CO₂ from the air as a raw material for synthesizing methane can promote the low-carbon development of the biomass industry and the low-carbon transformation of the region. However, the carbon reduction benefits of using biomass gasification for power generation instead of direct biomass combustion are more significant. CO₂ emissions from the application side of methane gas can be reduced by upgrading gas-fired boilers and gas-fired generating units with CCUS technology during the use of fuel gas.

(3)

Economy and industrialization

From the point of view of the late use of energy products, the construction of hydrogen refueling stations in China is still lagging, the hydrogen scene in many cities is still in its infancy, and the cost of hydrogen storage and transportation is too high, which is an important factor restricting the development of the hydrogen industry. In addition, some regions in China have more stringent policy control on hydrogen, which is still not defined as an “energy” species, greatly restricting the landing of the biomass hydrogen industry [27,28]. Natural gas is easier to store and transport than hydrogen, and natural gas can be quickly utilized in cities through power generation, heating, cogeneration, etc. Therefore, natural gas from biomass has realistic conditions for industrialization in China.

5. Conclusions

Based on the data of biomass collection, transportation, power generation, hydrogen production and gas production in China, this paper constructs a multi-chain hybrid whole-life-cycle “electricity to gas” process evaluation model; comprehensively compares the whole-life-cycle technical energy consumption, carbon emission and cost of the two chains of “hydrogen from biomass power generation” and “methane from biomass power generation”; and examines the applicability of biomass industry in China from the industrial and policy levels.

The main conclusions of this paper are as follows:

Firstly, natural gas from biomass has significant advantages over hydrogen from biomass in terms of energy consumption, carbon emissions and economics. In particular, the full life-cycle energy consumption of biomass to natural gas is 189 MJ, which is 19% less than that of biomass to hydrogen. The carbon emission is 40.42 kg CO₂ e, which is about 47% of the biomass to hydrogen. The full life-cycle cost of biomass to natural gas is USD 6.05, which is 36.8% lower than biomass to hydrogen.

Secondly, the energy consumption of the two biomass “electro-gas” technologies, which occurs mainly in the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen, could be reduced by using PEM electrolyzers with higher energy efficiency and lower cold-start times in order to reduce whole-life-cycle energy consumption.

Thirdly, the CO₂ emissions of the two biomass-to-gas technologies come mainly from the direct biomass combustion stage, where CO₂ is emitted directly from the combustion of biomass. In the carbon emission structure of biomass to natural gas, the “synthesis of methane” stage has a limited “sequestration” effect due to the use of CO₂ as a feedstock and only reduces carbon emissions by 6.4% for the whole-life-cycle process of biomass to natural gas. Biomass gasification for power generation, as an alternative technology, can reduce carbon emissions by about 55%.

Fourthly, due to the highly decentralized nature of biomass feedstock, biomass collection is the main reason for the high cost of the biomass-to-gas process. Currently, hydrogen is still regulated as a chemical in major provinces in China. Optimizing the distance from biomass feedstock collection to the hydrogen chemical park will be an important step to reduce the whole-life-cycle cost of biomass-to-gas from electricity. Optimizing the distance from biomass feedstock collection to the hydrogen production chemical park will be an important measure to reduce the whole-life-cycle cost of “electricity to gas” biomass. Through the production of methane gas, methane can be imported into existing natural gas pipelines in China, reducing the cost of natural gas storage, transportation and application. This can buy time for the construction of hydrogen infrastructure and the industrialization of hydrogen energy.