Article

Energy Solutions for Decarbonization of Industrial

Heat Processes
Danieli Veronezi 1, *, Marcel Soulier 2 and Tímea Kocsis 3,4

1 Centre of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Eötvös Loránd University, 1117 Budapest, Hungary
2 Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, 40589 Düsseldorf, Germany
3 Department of Methodology for Business Analysis, Faculty of Commerce, Hospitality and Tourism, Budapest
Business University, Alkotmány utca 9-11, 1054 Budapest, Hungary
4 Faculty of Science, Centre of Environmental Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter Sétány 1/A,
1117 Budapest, Hungary
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The global rise in population and advancement in civilization have led to a substantial
increase in energy demand, particularly in the industrial sector. This sector accounts for a considerable
proportion of total energy consumption, with approximately three-quarters of its energy consumption
being used for heat processes. To meet the Paris Agreement goals, countries are aligning policies
with international agreements, and companies are setting net-zero targets. Upstream emissions of
the Scope 3 category refer to activities in the company’s supply chain, being crucial for achieving its
net-zero ambitions. This study analyzes heating solutions for the supply chain of certain globally
operating companies, contributing to their 2030 carbon-neutral ambition. The objective is to identify
current and emerging heating solutions from carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 e) impact, economic,
and technical perspectives, considering regional aspects. The methodology includes qualitative and
quantitative surveys to identify heating solutions and gather regional CO2 e emission factors and
energy prices. Calculations estimate the CO2 e emissions and energy costs for each technology or fuel,
considering each solution’s efficiency. The study focuses on Europe, the United States, Brazil, China,
and Saudi Arabia, regions or countries representative of companies’ global supply chain setups.
Results indicate that heat pumps are the optimal solution for low temperatures, while biomass is
the second most prevalent solution, except in Saudi Arabia where natural gas is more feasible. For
medium and high temperatures, natural gas is viable in the short term for Saudi Arabia and China,
Citation: Veronezi, D.; Soulier, M.;
while biomass and electrification are beneficial for other regions. The proportion of electricity in the
Kocsis, T. Energy Solutions for
energy mix is expected to increase, but achieving decarbonization targets requires cleaner energy
Decarbonization of Industrial Heat
mixes or competitive Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) projects. Brazil, with its high proportion of
Processes. Energies 2024, 17, 5728.
renewable energy sources, offers favorable conditions for using green electricity to reduce emissions.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en17225728
The utilization of biomethane is promising if costs and incentives align with those in the EU. Although
Academic Editors: Domicián Máté not the objective of this study, a comprehensive analysis of CAPEX and lifecycle costs associated
and Hora Cristina
with equipment is necessary when migrating technologies. Policies and economic incentives can also
Received: 26 September 2024 make these solutions more or less favorable.
Revised: 31 October 2024
Accepted: 8 November 2024 Keywords: industrial heating; greenhouse gas emissions; decarbonization; low-carbon solutions;
Published: 15 November 2024 regional analysis

Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.

1. Introduction
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article The International Energy Agency [1] reported that the greatest sectoral increase in
distributed under the terms and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2022 derived from electricity and heat generation,
conditions of the Creative Commons whose emissions were up by 1.8% or 261 Mt. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Change (IPCC) created five scenarios for the climate response based on scientific studies
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), land use, and air pollutants. The most optimistic
4.0/). scenario involves cutting global carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 e) emissions to net zero

Energies 2024, 17, 5728. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17225728 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

 Change (IPCC) created five scenarios for the climate response based on scientific studies
of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), land use, and air pollutants. The most optimistic
scenario involves cutting global carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions to net zero
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 by 2050, which would meet the Paris Agreement [2] target of limiting global warming 2 ofto23
1.5 °C above preindustrial temperatures [3]. However, the most recent projections in the
IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report [4] indicate that there is a high probability of exceeding
the 1.5 °Cwhich
by 2050, limit between
would meet 2021the andParis
2040,Agreement
particularly [2]intarget
scenarios with higher
of limiting globalemissions.
warming to It
emphasizes
◦ the urgent need for prompt and decisive action
1.5 C above preindustrial temperatures [3]. However, the most recent projections in the to tackle climate change and
achieve
IPCC’s Sixththe goals set out for
Assessment mitigating
Report global
[4] indicate thattemperature
there is a highrise,probability
with the energy sector
of exceeding
playing ◦ a significant role [5]. To achieve the goals of the Paris
the 1.5 C limit between 2021 and 2040, particularly in scenarios with higher emissions. Agreement, countries areIt
aligning
emphasizes theirthepolicies
urgentwithneedinternational
for prompt and agreements and companies
decisive action are setting
to tackle climate changetargets
and
and strategies
achieve the goalsto achieve
set outnet for zero [6], (also
mitigating defined
global as “climate
temperature neutrality”
rise, with the [7] supported
energy sector
by scientific initiatives such as the Science Based Targets initiative—SBTi
playing a significant role [5]. To achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, countries are [8]. In scholarly
use, the word
aligning their “decarbonization”
policies with international means a reduction
agreements in and
greenhouse
companies gas emissions
are setting[9]. The
targets
Greenhouse
and strategies Gas toProtocol
achieve [10] standard
net zero is widely
[6], (also definedused as to accountneutrality”
“climate for CO2e emissions,
[7] supported and
itbyestablishes three scopes
scientific initiatives to categorize
such as the Science the types
BasedofTargets
emissions (Figure 1). GHG
initiative—SBTi [8]. Inaccounting
scholarly
related
use, thetowordenergy consumption formeans
“decarbonization” industrial heatingin
a reduction is greenhouse
reported under Scope 1 as[9].
gas emissions partThe of
Greenhouse
the company’s Gas Protocol
control [10] standard
processes. It can is widely
also be heatused to generates
that account for CO2 e2 emissions,
Scope emissions and if it
it converted
is establishesfrom threeelectricity
scopes to categorize
drawn from thethetypes
gridofandemissions (Figure is
that electricity 1).not
GHG accounting
decarbonized
related
[11]. to energy
Scope 3 of the consumption for industrial
inventory addresses heating isand
the upstream reported under Scope
downstream 1 as within
activities part of
the product
the company’s valuecontrol
chain.processes.
SchmidtItetcan al. also
[12] be heat thata generates
presented study showingScope the2 emissions
ratio of Scopeif it is
converted
1, from electricity
2 and 3 emissions drawnsectors
in different from the grid and that
in Germany, andelectricity
demonstratedis not the
decarbonized
importance[11]. of
Scope3,3 which
Scope of the emerged
inventoryasaddresses the upstream
the most significant and sectors,
in many downstream activities within
often accounting for more the
product
than 70%value
of a chain.
company’s SchmidttotaletGHG
al. [12] presentedFurthermore,
emissions. a study showing the ratio of
the company inScope
question 1, 2
and 3 emissions in different sectors in Germany, and demonstrated
disclosed in its 2023 sustainability report that 99% of its GHG emissions originate from the importance of Scope
3, which
Scope 3, emerged
with 26% as attributed
the most significant
to upstream in many sectors,associated
emissions often accounting for more than
with suppliers. The
decarbonization of energy-intensive sectors, such as steel production, disclosed
70% of a company’s total GHG emissions. Furthermore, the company in question cement
in its 2023 sustainability
manufacturing, and the report that 99%
chemical of its GHG
industry, notemissions originate the
only improves fromsustainability
Scope 3, with
26% attributed to upstream emissions associated with suppliers.
performance of these industries but also affects the entire value chain, as these sectors’ The decarbonization of
energy-intensive sectors, such as steel production, cement
emissions are reflected in their customers’ Scope 3 calculations. Therefore, the manufacturing, and the chemical
industry, not only
decarbonization of improves
industrialthe sustainability
heating in supply performance
chains plays ofan
these industries
important rolebutin also
the
affects the entire value chain, as these sectors’ emissions are
realization of net-zero ambitions, where businesses are in a key position to influence the reflected in their customers’
Scope 3 calculations.
behavior, operations and Therefore, the decarbonization
investments of their suppliers. of industrial heating in supply chains
plays an important role in the realization of net-zero ambitions, where businesses are in a
key position to influence the behavior, operations and investments of their suppliers.

Figure 1. Overview of GHG Protocol scopes and emissions across the value chain [13].
Figure 1. Overview of GHG Protocol scopes and emissions across the value chain [13].
Decarbonizing industrial heating requires innovation and presents challenges, includ-
ing meeting a variety of process requirements such as heating temperature range, and
regional specifications related to resource availability and prices. Among energy solutions,
electrification is a promising path forward, with various technologies at different stages
of development, including heat pumps, electric boilers and thermal energy storage (TES)
systems. Furthermore, alternative fuels such as hydrogen, biomass and biomethane are also
in advanced stages of use or development and gaining widespread attention. Selecting any
 and regional specifications related to resource availability and prices. Among energy
solutions, electrification is a promising path forward, with various technologies at
different stages of development, including heat pumps, electric boilers and thermal
energy storage (TES) systems. Furthermore, alternative fuels such as hydrogen, biomass
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 and biomethane are also in advanced stages of use or development and gaining 3 of 23
widespread attention. Selecting any of these technologies raises concerns about their
reliability in meeting demand, flexibility in different scenarios (such as weather conditions
and gridtechnologies
of these requirements), andconcerns
raises feasibility from
about an investment
their reliability inand operational
meeting demand,perspective
flexibility
[14]. It is important
in different to (such
scenarios consider varying conditions
as weather conditions and
that grid
differrequirements),
from one region
andtofeasibility
another.
from an investment and operational perspective [14]. It is important to consider varying
1.1. Industrial
conditions Heating
that differ Processes
from one region to another.
Heating applications are important in almost all industries and domestic processes,
1.1. Industrial Heating Processes
and most of the materials that we use and the food and drinks that we consume have been
heated Heating
at some applications
stage. For are important
industrial in almost
processes, all industries
heating is used and for domestic processes,
different purposes,
and most of the materials that we use and the food and drinks
including the generation of steam, the carrying out of chemical reactions, the dryingthat we consume have
of
been heated at some stage. For industrial processes, heating is used for
materials, the melting of metals and the heating of installations. In addition, there are different purposes,
includingtechniques
different the generation of steam,
for heating, the carrying
including out of chemical
fuel combustion, electricalreactions, theheating
and radiant drying
of materials, the melting of metals and the heating of installations.
[15]. A fundamental distinction can be drawn between direct and indirect heating In addition, there
are different techniques for heating, including fuel combustion, electrical
processes. In direct processes, heat is brought into direct contact with the material without and radiant
heating
the use of [15]. A fundamental
a heat exchanger. distinction
In contrast,can be drawn
indirect between
processes direct and
involve indirect heating
the transfer of heat
processes. In direct processes, heat is brought into direct contact with the material without
through the surface of the material with the assistance of a heat transfer medium (air,
the use of a heat exchanger. In contrast, indirect processes involve the transfer of heat
steam, liquid baths) by conduction and convection or by heat radiation (infrared) [16].
through the surface of the material with the assistance of a heat transfer medium (air, steam,
Due to the wide variety of applications, industrial heat generally requires different
liquid baths) by conduction and convection or by heat radiation (infrared) [16].
temperature levels, depending on the specific needs of each process. In terms of
Due to the wide variety of applications, industrial heat generally requires different
temperature, high ranges above 400 °C are required to produce metals and non-metallic
temperature levels, depending on the specific needs of each process. In terms of tempera-
minerals such as cement, ceramic, and glass. Low and medium temperatures below 400
ture, high ranges above 400 ◦ C are required to produce metals and non-metallic minerals
°C provide most of the heat required for food manufacturers, sterilization, textiles, paper,
such as cement, ceramic, and glass. Low and medium temperatures below 400 ◦ C provide
oil refining, chemical and wood products [17].
most of the heat required for food manufacturers, sterilization, textiles, paper, oil refining,
Figure 2 contrasts the overall world energy consumption with the specific energy
chemical and wood products [17].
needs of the industrial sector, highlighting the latter’s significant dependence on heat
Figure 2 contrasts the overall world energy consumption with the specific energy needs
energy. The industry
of the industrial accounts
sector, for 32%the
highlighting of latter’s
total energy usage dependence
significant (in 2019), with onaheat
staggering
energy.
74%
The industry accounts for 32% of total energy usage (in 2019), with a staggering processes
of its consumption dedicated to generating heat. High-temperature 74% of its
constitute
consumption nearly half of to
dedicated thegenerating
heat demandheat.while the remainderprocesses
High-temperature is split between low-
constitute and
nearly
medium-temperature
half of the heat demandapplications. Notably,
while the remainder onlybetween
is split a small low-
fraction of industrial energy
and medium-temperature
comes
applications. Notably, only a small fraction of industrial energy comes reducing
from renewables, pointing to a substantial opportunity for carbon
from renewables,
emissions in the sector [11].
pointing to a substantial opportunity for reducing carbon emissions in the sector [11].

Figure 2. Industry drives global energy consumption [11].

Figure 2. Industry drives global energy consumption [11].
1.2. Technological Developments for Heating Process Decarbonization
The quest for decarbonization in industrial heating processes has led to significant
technological advancements aimed at reducing the reliance on fossil fuels. These inno-
vations encompass the implementation of electrically powered solutions, as well as the
exploration of low-carbon fuel alternatives. Additionally, advancements in material science
have led to the development of high-efficiency insulation and heat exchange materials,
which further reduce energy waste. Bellos et al. [18] investigated the efficiency of three dif-
ferent solar collector types coupled to an absorption heat transformer for industrial process
heat production in the low-temperature range (80–160 ◦ C). They found that a simple flat
plate collector is the best choice for the range 95–120 ◦ C, an advanced flat plate collector
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 4 of 23

is the best solution for higher temperatures up to 140 ◦ C, and for higher temperatures, an
evacuated tube collector beats the others. Walden et al. [19] states that heat pumps present
a highly efficient component to decarbonize process heating. For any zero-carbon heating
technology to be viable, it must complete the end user’s heat requirement at an affordable
cost [20]. Pisciotta et al. [21] investigated the cement, lime, glass, and steelmaking industries
in the US for low-carbon solutions (e.g., carbon capture and storage, fuel switching, etc.) in
industrial heating processes.
Among the low- and medium-temperature industrial heating solutions, there are
established technologies, including biomass, electric boilers, concentrate solar thermal
systems (CST), and heat pumps. Kumar R. et al. [22] describes the diverse processes
in which solar thermal or concentrate solar thermal (CST) systems can be utilized to
supply renewable energy, while addressing key challenges such as climate conditions,
space requirements, and energy intermittency. In the context of the decarbonization of
energy-intensive industries, such as steel production, there are already established solutions
that utilize electricity, with electric arc furnaces and cases using bioenergy, which employs
charcoal as a fuel source and reduction agent within a blast furnace, used as an option where
the fuel is available. In cement production, the integration of alternative energy sources
instead of fossil fuels, known as coprocessing, is already established, and the use of biogas or
biomethane requires only a modest retrofit to kilns [23]. Furthermore, there is considerable
potential for the utilization of hydrogen (H2 ) as a fuel for both sectors. However, the
price of this fuel may be a limiting factor in certain applications. In this context, the term
‘green hydrogen’ is employed to describe hydrogen produced from renewable sources [24].
Furthermore, the development of Thermal Energy Storage (TES) systems has increased their
potential as a solution to the challenges of energy management and distribution at high
temperatures. These systems are capable of releasing and storing heat, offering a versatile
solution to these challenges [25]. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) [26,27] is emerging
as a compelling option for decarbonizing high-energy-intensity industries, serving as a
critical measure in instances where the transition away from fossil fuels is not currently
viable due to technical or economic constraints. While geothermal energy has been raised
as a sustainable solution for residential and district heating, especially associated with
heat pumps, its application in industrial heating is constrained by its temperature output
and geographical availability. However, its contribution to a mix of renewable electricity
generation is noteworthy [28].
The purpose of this study is to provide an analysis of heating solutions for the supply
chain of companies with a global presence to contribute to their carbon neutrality ambitions.
The evaluation will focus on existing and emerging technologies, considering their CO2
emissions, required operating temperature ranges, and estimates of operational expendi-
tures. The aim of this comprehensive analysis is to identify solutions that are well-suited
for different global regions and evaluate the most beneficial in terms of defined criteria.

2. Material and Methods

Five regions (Brazil, China, US, EU, Saudi Arabia) were selected to analyze possible
solutions for decarbonizing heating processes based on source energy consumption and
technology to find the best low-carbon solution for each region. These regions were selected
based on the supply chains of a specific globally operating company, but at the same time
they represent the most powerful economic regions of almost all continents.

2.1. Data Collection

This study included both qualitative and quantitative surveys to identify industrial
heating solutions and collect regional data on CO2 e emission factors and energy prices.
The data collection focused on prioritizing the main sources, which included government
websites, environmental agencies, scientific articles, and research institutions. Official
organizations and governmental environmental agencies were instrumental in providing
accurate data on energy emission factors and prices.
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 5 of 23

However, the availability of data was limited in certain regions, notably China and
Saudi Arabia, where transparency in reporting is less consistent. In these cases, estimations
were made based on literature reviews. Despite these challenges, the study aimed to
maintain a high level of reliability by providing justifications for all assumptions and
prioritizing official data sources. These efforts ensured that the conclusions drawn were
robust and based on the best available information.
It is also important to note that emission factors and energy prices are subject to time
variation and can be influenced by a range of factors, including climatic conditions and
geopolitical aspects.

2.2. Identification of Industrial Heating Solutions

A comprehensive literature review was carried out to identify current and emerging
industrial energy solutions for low- (<100 ◦ C), medium- (100 ◦ C to 400 ◦ C) and high-
(above 400 ◦ C) temperature processes. The solutions were categorized according to these
temperature ranges to provide a broader understanding of industrial heating, rather than
focusing on a single productive process. The criterion used to select solutions was the
technology’s stage of development. To meet the CO2 emissions targets as soon as possible,
it is crucial to consider technologies that are at least in the pre-commercial demonstration
stage, meaning they could be in use within five years. Therefore, the identified solutions
meeting these definitions are listed according to Table 1.

Table 1. Identified solutions by temperature range/green color signs existing technologies for the
given temperature range.

Temperature Range Stage of

Technology ◦C ◦C ◦C ◦C
<100 >100 <400 >400 Development
Heat pump [11] - - Commercial
Electric boiler [11] - Commercial
Biomethane fuel [23] Commercial
Biomass fuel [23] Commercial
Thermal energy storage [25] Pre-commercial
Electric arc furnace [23] Commercial

2.3. Definition of Regional Approach

The use of a regional approach was crucial for considering the unique circumstances of
each area, which may yield different outcomes. The emission factors for CO2 e in relation to
electricity grids and fuels vary between countries. This study focuses on regions that are the
most significant global sourcing areas or countries for the company under investigation. The
selected regions or countries were Europe, the United States, Brazil, China, and Saudi Arabia.

2.4. Survey of CO2 e Emission Factors

To determine the CO2 e emissions and estimate the operational costs, a survey was
conducted. The survey collected quantitative data on the CO2 e emission factors of the
electricity grids and fuels and their respective prices for each defined region. For Europe,
the figures represent the countries of the European Union, and it is important to note that
an average is used, which may vary for each constituent country. The CO2 e factor of the
grid, i.e., the emissions per unit of electricity generated, is determined by the different
power sources of the grid. This can vary significantly from country to country, depending
on the main source of power generation. For example, a country whose main resource is
coal-fired thermoelectric power will have a correspondingly higher emission factor than
a country that relies on hydropower. This specific case can be visualized by comparing
China and Brazil, which make greater use of coal and hydropower, respectively. In some
countries that are continental in size and do not have an entirely connected grid, such as
the US, the CO2 e emission factor can vary widely by region. However, for the purposes of
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 6 of 23

this study, the average value provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
was used. The values for the grids can be found in Table 2.

Table 2. Average grid CO2 e emission factor by region or country.

Region/Country Year kgCO2 e/kWh

Brazil [29] 2022 0.043
China [30] 2021 0.557
European Union [31] 2021 0.360
Saudi Arabia [30] 2021 0.614
United States [32] 2022 0.389

The emission factors for fuel can also vary from region to region, depending on their
composition and the proportion of renewable fuel, as in the case of diesel and gasoline, or on
the feedstock in the case of biomass. Based on that, emission factors were collected using a
regional approach, and non-renewable fuels also considered for the purpose of comparison.
For fuels such as diesel, coal or natural gas, this CO2 e may not vary significantly, and
a default value is used (Table 3). For the biomass emission factor, a survey of the main
materials used in the regions was conducted and used as the emission factor, and the values
are shown in Table 4. In both cases, the emission factor was converted from kgCO2 e/GJ to
kgCO2 e/kWh by setting 1 GJ as equal to 277.77 kWh.

Table 3. Fuel emission factors [32].

Fuel kg CO2 e/GJ kgCO2 e/kWh

Coal 99.20 0.357
Diesel 74.07 0.266
Natural Gas 55.713 0.186

Table 4. Average biomass CO2 e emission factor by region or country.

Region/Country Biomass Type kg CO2 e/GJ kgCO2 e/kWh

Brazil [29] Sugarcane bagasse 1.94 0.006
China [29–32] Crop Straw - 0.007
European Union [33] Woody biomass/forest biomass - 0.027
Saudi Arabia - - -
United States [32] Wood and Wood Residuals 1.25 0.004

In Brazil, biomass accounts for 8.8% of the energy matrix, with sugar cane bagasse and
straw being the principal sources of biomass electricity generation in the country, account-
ing for 71% [34]. China’s biomass resources mainly come from the agricultural sector, such
as straw [35]. Within the EU’s bioenergy usage, solid biofuels accounted for 70.3% in 2021,
with approximately three-quarters of the biomass supply coming from Germany [36]. The
main biomass source for heating processes in the country is woody/forest biomass [37],
which was taken into account in this study for the EU biomass reference values for CO2 e
emissions. In Saudi Arabia, renewables account for less than 1% of the total energy mix
in 2021 [38] and therefore, they are not included in the overview of emission factors in
Table 4. In the US in 2022, wood and wood waste—bark, sawdust, wood chips, wood
scrap and paper mill residues—accounted for 2.1% of total annual US energy consump-
tion. The industrial sector consumed 61% of the wood and wood waste share of energy
consumption [39].
As China’s biomass emission factor was not identified, the average of crop straw or
vegetal waste in US and Brazil was used, as these are both large agricultural countries.
However, it is worth mentioning that the crop emissions may vary for each region depend-
ing on agricultural practices. Another important aspect is that emissions from biomass
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 7 of 23

are classified as biogenic, meaning they are associated with the natural carbon cycle of
biologically based material. From this perspective of the life cycle, most carbon accounting
methodologies consider the net balance of CO2 to be zero, considering its sequestration
during plant growth. The biomass emissions considered in this study relate to CH4 and
N2 O. The emission factor for biomethane as a replacement for natural gas can be considered
neutral due to its closed life cycle and production from sources such as organic material or
ethanol production.

2.5. Survey of Energy Prices

A survey was conducted to find the energy prices for electricity and fuels in each of
the determined regions. To ensure data harmonization, the costs presented in this survey
are in USD/kWh. For certain fuels, such as coal and biomass, prices are found in USD
per ton and in these cases, it was necessary to find the mass required to supply 1 kWh
and calculate its cost. To make this calculation, the heat content of the fuels had to be
collected, and the conversions can be found in Appendices A and B. The energy price
survey is presented in Table 5. The prices of biomass and biomethane for the EU were
based on German prices. This is because this information is not compiled for the EU, unlike
electricity and natural gas, and the country is the largest producer and consumer of these
fuels among EU countries. The price of EU biomass was calculated based on the average
price between wood pellets (506.81 EUR/t) and wood chips (187.34 EUR/t). The price
of sugarcane bagasse in Brazil can vary regionally, ranging from 30 USD/t to 80 USD/t,
and the average value was taken into consideration (55 USD/ton). For biomethane, no
more recent prices were found for the US and China, and they may not reflect the current
situation. For the US and China, data from the International Energy Agency were taken,
which give world prices from 50 USD/MWh to 190 USD/MWh, and the higher figure was
taken. The average price of electricity in the EU was taken from the last quarter of 2023.
However, it should be noted that this figure has fluctuated considerably.

Table 5. Values for energy prices by region.

Energy Price (USD/kWh)

Region/Country
Electricity Natural Gas Biomass Biomethane Coal Diesel
Brazil 0.170 [40] 0.111 [41] 0.027 [42] 0.250 [43] 0.019 [44] -
China 0.093 [45] 0.049 [46] 0.062 [35] 0.190 [47] 0.014 [48] -
European Union 0.200 [49] 0.079 [49] 0.070 [50] 0.190 [50] 0.024 [51] -
Saudi Arabia 0.059 [52] 0.005 [53] - - 0.024 [51] 0.008 [54]
United States 0.078 [55] 0.048 [56] 0.044 [39] 0.190 [47] 0.019 [44] -

2.6. Calculation Method

Electricity emission factors were collected for each grid and fuel, along with their
regional prices. These data provided the basic context for assessing the energy efficiency of
different heating systems and solutions through the Coefficient of Performance (COP). The
COP is an indicator of a system’s efficiency as it measures the amount of heat produced per
unit of energy consumed (Equation (1)) [57]. For example, a gas boiler with a COP of 0.8
effectively delivers 0.8 kWh of heat energy for every 1 kWh of energy consumed.

Useful output energy

COP = × 100 (1)
Inputed energy

It is important to mention that for combustion systems, the term Annual Fuel Uti-
lization Efficiency (AFUE) can also be found, expressing the same conception as the COP.
Using efficiency, the energy consumption of each appliance was calculated to determine the
amount of energy required to provide 1 kWh of heat. This approach allows a comparative
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 8 of 23

analysis of the energy costs and emissions associated with each system. It is important to
note that the efficiency of each system has a direct impact on its energy consumption; less
efficient systems require more energy to produce the same amount of heat. Therefore, both
the operating costs and the environmental impact of each system vary with their respective
COP values. This methodological approach enables an understanding of the trade-offs
between equipment efficiency, cost effectiveness and environmental impact, and provides a
comprehensive basis for evaluating energy solutions in the context of regional variations
in fuel costs and electricity emission factors. By rearranging Equation (1), it is possible to
calculate the energy required to supply 1 kWh.
Applying the COP for each technology and taking 1 kWh of output energy as a
baseline, Table 6. shows the results of emissions and energy prices for each technology
evaluated. For comparison with current use, fossil fuel-based equipment was also included
in the calculations and is presented in Table 6. The efficiency of equipment can vary
depending on factors such as the design and technology used. The values presented here
represent an average of the theoretical efficiency ranges. It is also important to highlight
that for equipment that utilizes combustible fuels, such as biomethane and natural gas,
the same efficiency value was considered for boilers and furnaces. Although the values
may be similar for both, it is important to emphasize that the operating systems are quite
different and here, the focus is more on the fuel used. Furthermore, it is important to note
that the CO2 e emissions resulting from electricity consumption can be further reduced or
even completely offset by choosing green electricity.

Table 6. CO2 e emissions and energy costs by region considering the COP of the technologies.

kgCO2 e and Region/Country

Technology COP USD/kWh European
Energy Output Brazil China Saudi Arabia United States
Union
CO2 e 0.014 0.186 0.120 0.205 0.130
Heat pump 3
Energy cost 0.057 0.031 0.067 0.020 0.026
CO2 e 0.043 0.557 0.360 0.614 0.389
Electric boiler 1 Energy cost 0.170 0.093 0.200 0.059 0.078
Biomethane CO2 e 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 0.000
0.8
boiler/furnace Energy cost 0.313 0.238 0.238 - 0.238
Biomass CO2 e 0.009 0.010 0.039 - 0.006
0.7
boiler/furnace Energy cost 0.039 0.089 0.099 - 0.063
Thermal CO2 e 0.051 0.655 0,424 0.722 0.458
energy storage 0.85
Energy cost 0.200 0.109 0.235 0.069 0.092
Electric air CO2 e 0.043 0.557 0.360 0.614 0.389
1 Energy cost 0.170 0.093 0.200 0.059 0.078
furnace
Diesel CO2 e - - - 0.380 -
0.7
boiler/furnace Energy cost - - - 0.008 -
Natural gas CO2 e 0.233 0.233 0.233 0.233 0.233
0.8
boiler/furnace Energy cost 0.139 0.061 0.099 0.006 0.060
Coal CO2 e 0.595 0.595 0.595 0.595 0.595
0.6
boiler/furnace Energy cost 0.032 0.023 0.040 0.040 0.032

3. Results and Discussion

The upcoming sections will conduct a comprehensive analysis to identify the most
beneficial solutions tailored to the specifics of each region. To achieve this, an analysis
will be conducted of the technologies or fuels that are most utilized in each region for a
specific temperature range. This will then be compared with solutions that can reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. These will serve as reference points for comparative analysis
to determine the most suitable solutions. The analysis will rank solutions based on the
estimated cost per ton of saved CO2 e. This quantifies the environmental impact in economic
terms, providing a tangible measure of sustainability and cost-effectiveness. Identifying
prevailing solutions and constraints within each region will optimize energy utilization
and facilitate a transition towards more sustainable alternatives, and aligns with global
efforts to mitigate climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 9 of 23

3.1. Ranking of the Solutions by Regions

3.1.1. Brazil
In 2021, approximately 47% of Brazil’s energy matrix consisted of renewable sources.
The largest contributor was oil at 34%, followed by sugar cane-based products (18%), natu-
ral gas (12%), and electricity (12%) [58]. Brazil predominantly relies on renewable sources
(84%), such as hydroelectric, biomass, solar, and wind power, for electricity production.
The projection for 2031 indicates an increase in natural gas supply and a decrease in oil
and its products. Sugarcane biomass is expected to play a larger role in the national en-
ergy matrix during the study period [58]. In Brazil, natural gas and electricity have the
biggest representation as energy sources for industrial heating processes, while coal usage
remains minimal despite its use in thermal power plants for energy generation. Natural
gas served as the reference for comparing low, medium, and high temperature ranges with
other solutions. The comparative results across low, medium and high temperature ranges
are presented in Appendix C. For both analyses, comparison was made with the use of
green electricity for electrical equipment (Appendix C). It is important to note that both
kgCO2 e and USD/kWh consider the efficiency of the listed equipment. Therefore, electric
equipment such as heat pumps and electric boilers may perform differently despite using
the same source of energy.
In the context of low and medium temperatures, biomass represented the most benefi-
cial solution for decarbonization efforts. This is due to the almost neutral value of CO2 e
emissions, as well as the low price, which can be attributed to it using processed waste
and Brazil being a major grower of sugar cane for ethanol and other derived products. The
utilization of sugarcane bagasse is viable in regions where its production is concentrated,
such as in the southeast of the country. Longer distances make the cost of the material
higher, as well as increasing the emissions associated with transportation. Another crucial
factor is the influence of the agricultural scenario on the price. Heat pumps come in second
place, while also reducing energy costs. This is also because Brazil has a very significant
sustainable electricity matrix in addition to the heat pump efficiency. It is important to
reinforce that current technologies for heat pumps can reach up to 150 ◦ C. Both heat pumps
and electric boilers can perform even better if they use sustainable sources with lower or
zero CO2 emissions. Conversely, biomethane presented the most expensive alternative in
comparison to natural gas, an anticipated outcome given its emerging technology land-
scape. Brazil already has incentives and policies for including a percentage of biomethane
in the natural gas pipeline; however, it has not been economically feasible in some regions
and improvements are still necessary in terms of legislative frameworks and incentives.
In comparison to the utilization of renewable electricity considering zero CO2 emissions
(Appendix C), both heat pumps and electric boilers demonstrate considerable potential
for cost savings, with reductions of 559.50 USD and 485.95 USD per tonCO2 e saved, re-
spectively. These savings exceed those associated with the use of biomass. The cost of
renewable electricity, in this case solar energy, was based on 0.026 USD/kWh [59], and the
same approach was employed to consider the efficiency of each type of equipment given
the output values (Appendix C). The utilization of this type of energy typically involves
the purchase of energy through power purchase agreements (PPAs), which are typically
structured as longer-term contracts. These contracts can be beneficial for companies from
an economic perspective, but more challenging in terms of long duration and specific terms
and risks associated. In Brazil, until 2024, there was a tax deduction for the supply of
solar energy. However, this ceased to apply to new installations after this period, which
should result in a reduction in the rate of increase in installed capacity in the country and
a reduction in its economic attractiveness [60]. Nevertheless, the solar energy market is
anticipated to expand from 34.20 GW at the end of 2023 to 97.46 GW by 2028; it is attractive
for Brazil because it has some of the highest solar irradiation in the world [61].
In the context of high temperatures, the utilization of electrical energy for equipment
such as electric arc furnaces with high-efficiency performance has been demonstrated to
be the most beneficial. However, an increase in cost is to be expected. The use of thermal
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 10 of 23

energy storage (TES) systems has typically been considered in conjunction with other
systems, which has the effect of enhancing the overall benefits of their use. For both
technologies, the use of renewable sources will result in enhanced performance in the
decarbonization process, as can be seen in Appendix C, becoming more affordable due to
the lower price of solar energy in the case of PPAs.

3.1.2. China
Over the past decade, China has primarily relied on coal as a source of energy, along
with notable representation in global oil and natural gas consumption. Nevertheless, even
Chinese leaders have come to recognize that the country’s economy is on the brink of
significant change [62]. The Chinese electrical sector is currently undergoing a significant
transition. Given that thermal plants currently account for over 70% of the world’s electric-
ity, it is of utmost importance to decarbonize this industry to address concerns surrounding
climate change 18. As Maguire [63] identifies, coal is currently the most prevalent fuel for
industrial heating in China.
In the context of low-temperature ranges, natural gas usage is employed as a bench-
mark for comparison with alternative solutions. In the context of medium- and high-
temperature scenarios, coal is employed as a reference point. The results of the analysis are
presented in Appendix D, which covers the low-temperature range and addresses medium-
and high-temperature scenarios. In addition, a comparison was made with the use of green
electricity for electrical equipment. Based on the comprehensive analysis conducted, heat
pumps represent the optimal choice for low-temperature processes due to their remarkable
efficiency, which exceeds that of gas or coal by a factor of three to four. Industrial heat
pumps are still emerging, but initial implementations can be found, especially within light
industries [62]. As China’s power sector accelerates its transition to decarbonization, the en-
vironmental performance of heat pumps will be even more impressive using grid electricity,
or when powered by renewable energy sources acquired by contracts or self-generated
electricity. Although biomass and biomethane may have higher costs, they offer significant
potential for future advancements. This is because biomass usage has been incentivized, as
highlighted by Guo et al. [35]. On the other hand, electric boilers may appear impractical
for reducing CO2 emissions due to the high coal share in the electrical grid, but it shows
promise as a viable solution when powered by green electricity alternatives.
When utilizing green electricity, specifically solar energy, the price is comparable to that
of grid electricity, typically around 0.91 USD/kWh [64]. After conducting output energy
calculations, Appendix D presents the performance of heat pumps, while also highlighting
electric boilers as an environmentally and economically viable solution. Heat pumps show
notable cost savings, with negative numbers indicating these savings. Nevertheless, when
green energy is employed, the cost reduction is less pronounced, as it aligns more closely
with the reduction in CO2 emissions. Coal remains the dominant energy source for Chinese
industries due to its cost-effectiveness compared to alternatives. When evaluating solutions
for medium and high temperatures, gas boilers present a viable option, although they incur
a fuel cost increase of approximately 104.60 USD/ton CO2 e saved. This makes gas boilers a
feasible short- to medium-term solution, despite their reliance on fossil fuels. Biomethane
and biomass rank second and third, respectively, due to their low or neutral CO2 emissions.
Electrification, on the other hand, remains a less affordable solution in the current Chinese
context, partly due to the emission factor of the grid and because its cost is three times
higher than that of coal. Nevertheless, when compared with green electricity usage, the
cost of decarbonization can be reduced by over 10 times due to the lack of emissions, going
from 1833.33 USD/ton CO2 e saved to 113.78 USD/ton CO2 e saved in the cases of electric
boiler and TES, making it more affordable than biomethane and approaching the cost of
biomass.
Decarbonizing high-temperature processes in industries poses significant challenges
in China, as these sectors are major contributors to the country’s CO2 emissions. Potential
solutions include natural gas, biomass, or electrification, while hydrogen may become viable
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 11 of 23

in the medium to long term as prices decrease. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies
can address industrial process emissions and those from residual fossil fuel use.
Regarding the analysis of energy costs, coal remains the most cost-effective energy
source in China, while also being the second highest in terms of emissions. The country’s
electricity generation sector heavily relies on fossil fuels, primarily coal, making it a major
contributor to China’s high CO2 emissions when considering the grid context.

3.1.3. European Union (EU)

In recent decades, the EU-27 has made significant progress in reducing GHG emissions
while promoting economic growth. Three-quarters of GHG emissions stem from energy-
related activities. Although the share of renewable energy in the energy mix increased from
21.8% in 2021 to 22.5% in 2022, fossil fuels still dominate. The European Union’s (EU) target
of 42.5% renewable energy by 2030 will accelerate the decarbonization of the EU’s electricity
supply in the coming decade. This will require a significant increase in renewable energy
capacity in the member states. In contrast, the industrial sector, which was responsible
for 21% of EU GHG emissions in 2021, has consistently reduced its emissions over time,
achieving a 35% decrease by 2021 compared to 1990 levels. This decline in emissions
is attributed to economic changes, emissions reduction measures, and improved energy
efficiency. Fluctuations in emissions are closely tied to production volumes, notably during
economic downturns such as those in 2008–2009 and 2020 [65].
In the EU scenario, fossil fuels play a significant role in heating. Natural gas serves as
a base for comparing technologies in the low- and medium-temperature range, while coal
is used as a reference for high-temperature applications, particularly in energy-intensive
industries. Appendix E presents the analysis of low- and medium-temperature applications
and provides the ranking of high-temperature applications. An analysis of green electricity
usage was also added.
According to the results shown in Appendix E, heat pumps prove to be the optimal
solution for low-temperature applications, offering superior performance in reducing
costs and emissions. However, it is important to note that this solution is limited to
temperatures up to 150 ◦ C and its efficiency decreases above 100 ◦ C, resulting in variable
performance. Biomass boilers offer a compelling alternative with energy cost investments
of 3.83 USD/ton CO2 e saved. Biomass contributed 40% to the EU’s renewable gross final
energy consumption in 2022, highlighting its key role [66]. The cost-effectiveness of biomass
varies depending on factors such as regional differences in wood pellet and chip prices,
availability, and geographical distribution, also applicable for different types of biomasses.
Electric boilers appear impractical for reducing CO2 emissions due to the grid emission
factor; however, it is important to consider that they can perform differently in countries
with a bigger share of renewable energy sources for electricity production. Alternatively,
choosing green energy or self-production can significantly change the scenario and achieve
CO2 reduction goals. According to LevelTen Energy [67], the average cost of green electricity
from wind and solar energy in the EU for PPAs was 0.062 USD/kWh in 2022. This cost
makes heat pumps an even more affordable and environmentally friendly option, with
electric boilers being the second most optimal choice, surpassing biomass. High-intensity
energy industries play a crucial role in decarbonization, and while natural gas offers one of
the better solutions, industry still relies heavily on fossil fuels. Biomethane offers a superior
solution to electrification, unless green electricity is used, due to its lower emissions and
comparable costs. According to the [68], biomethane production has doubled since 2018,
highlighting its growing potential for future use.
In the context of electrification, as the electricity grid incorporates more renewable
energy, the scenario will improve for equipment such as electric boilers, electric furnaces,
and TES, which will also impact hydrogen production. This shift is attributed to the
CO2 e reduction potential of these solutions compared to high-emission fuels like coal.
Appendix E presents an analysis of green energy usage, and the findings indicate that
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 12 of 23

in this scenario electrification represents the most advantageous solution from both an
environmental and an economic perspective.
The EU has introduced significant legislation, such as the Energy Efficiency Directive
(EED, EU/2023/1791) and the Renewable Energy Directive (RED, 2009/28/EC), alongside
the Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA, COM (2023) 161), creating a robust policy framework to
support the electrification of various sectors.

3.1.4. Saudi Arabia

Currently, Saudi Arabia’s energy landscape is dominated by conventional sources,
with solar contributing just 0.1%, natural gas 59.6% and oil 40.3% to the primary energy
mix [69]. However, recognizing the need for sustainable development and environmental
protection, the country has set targets, outlined in the Saudi Green Initiative, to increase
the share of renewable energy to 50% by 2030. This shift towards renewable resources is
mainly driven by wind and photovoltaic (PV) solar [70]. Appendix F presents the ranking
of solutions for low temperatures, and for the medium and high temperature ranges
compared with diesel usage. A comparison with green electricity was also performed.
For low temperatures, the most beneficial solution compared to the commonly used
diesel in terms of carbon abatement and cost is the use of natural gas. The cost of fossil fuels,
i.e., diesel and natural gas, in the country is very low compared to electricity, for instance.
A second option is heat pumps. Given the projected increase in energy demand and the
goal of carbon neutrality by 2060, investments in technologies like heat pumps could be
strategically beneficial for Saudi Arabia. For the use of green electricity, heat pumps emerge
as the most environmentally and economically advantageous solution, followed by electric
boilers. The country is investing in solar installations, which may result in low supply
costs. In this analysis, a projection of 0.032 USD/kWh for PPAswas used, according to
studies by Bellini [71]. The analysis of high-temperature applications presents similar
performance according to the results in Appendix F. For high-temperature applications, a
similar scenario is observed, with natural gas being the most advantageous both in terms of
CO2 reduction and its smaller cost increase. When considering grid supply, electrification
is not feasible due to the high emission factor associated with the grid, which results in
increased emissions compared to diesel. However, when green electricity is used, the cost
in USD per ton of CO2 e saved can be significantly reduced. Therefore, electrification may
become a viable alternative in the future.
In terms of the energy source scenario in Saudi Arabia, natural gas and diesel come with
the lowest cost but highest emissions. Grid electricity does not seem to be attractive in the
current scenario, considering its price and the higher emissions associated with it, but once
the country progresses towards its renewable electricity targets, this scenario may change in
terms of emissions. The use of green electricity appears to be an intermediate source, with
zero emissions and a price higher than fossil fuels but lower than grid electricity.

3.1.5. United States (US)

In 2020, industrial activities in the United States contributed approximately 25% of
the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. This highlights the urgent need for sustainable,
zero-emission manufacturing processes to meet the national climate goals of reducing
emissions by 50% to 52% by 2030 and achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Projections
indicate a substantial rise in industrial electricity demand by 2030 and 2050, with wind and
solar energy emerging as cost-effective solutions to meet this demand. The increasing use
of renewable energy sources may pose a threat to the economic feasibility of conventional
power sources, resulting in the decommissioning of some coal, natural gas, and nuclear
plants [72]. For the US, natural gas was used as a baseline to compare against, both for
low- or medium- and for high-temperature ranges, cf. Appendix G. An analysis of green
electricity was also performed.
Among the various heating technologies evaluated, for low to medium temperature
ranges heat pumps stand out as the most cost-effective solution for reducing CO2 emissions,
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 13 of 23

with a cost reduction of 330.60 USD/ton CO2 saved. Biomass follows as a viable alternative.
Biomethane, however, proves less economical, at 763.40 USD/ton CO2 saved. The results
indicate that all technologies, except electric boilers, achieve significant CO2 emissions
reductions compared to baseline natural gas use. Conversely, electric boilers increase both
emissions and costs when grid electricity is considered. However, the scenario changes
when green electricity is used, as shown in Appendix G. Electrification, including the use
of heat pumps and electric boilers, becomes the most advantageous option, reducing both
emissions and costs. The cost of green electricity used in the calculations is based on a mix
of wind and solar power for PPAs, priced at 0.0398 USD/kWh according to [67].
In the context of high temperatures, biomass emerges as the most beneficial option,
with a cost increase of 12.6 USD/ton CO2 e saved. This is followed by biomethane, which
exhibits a significant cost increase of 763.44 USD/ton CO2 e saved. It has been shown that
electrification using typical electrical grids is not a favorable approach in terms of CO2
reduction. However, the use of renewable electricity or grids with a lower carbon footprint
can provide a more favorable scenario for electrification and may be a viable solution, as
shown in Appendix G. For the use of green electricity, electrification appears to be the most
advantageous solution, surpassing the use of biomass.

4. Conclusions
Solutions to decarbonize industrial heat generation vary across different regions. In
general, when considering the regions under study, the use of heat pumps emerges as
the optimal solution for low temperatures. This system, when connected to clean sources
of electricity, still demonstrates enhanced performance compared to other technologies.
Furthermore, the utilization of TES facilitates more effective energy management. The use
of biomass is the second most prevalent in most of the regions under study, except for Saudi
Arabia, where natural gas would be more feasible. However, it should be noted that each
region has its own particularities regarding the use of biomass such as price, availability
and geographic distribution.
In the case of medium and high temperatures, natural gas represents a viable solution
for countries such as Saudi Arabia and China in the short term as it remains reliant on fossil
fuels. For the remainder of the countries, the use of biomass and electrification represent
the most beneficial solutions. In general, the proportion of electricity in the energy mix is
expected to increase. However, to achieve decarbonization targets, it will be necessary to
develop cleaner energy mixes or projects for PPAs that have demonstrated competitive
prices. It is, however, recommended to conduct a deeper analysis of the conditions and
risks associated with such projects.
Brazil is the region with the highest proportion of renewable energy sources and
offers the most favorable conditions for using electricity while reducing emissions. Solar
thermal energy systems could further support the renewable energy supply and justify
further exploration. Furthermore, the electrification of energy sources raises concerns
about the installed capacities required to meet demand. Another aspect when changing
electrification is the capital expenditure (Capex) associated with it, as the replacement of
fossil fuel equipment and potential process adjustments comes with an investment cost.
When considering biofuels, this replacement may not be necessary or may require smaller
adaptations. It is important to note that this study does not provide a detailed comparison
of Capex and maintenance costs, as these can fluctuate depending on technology migration
type, operational temperature ranges, and regional factors, such as economic incentives.
Therefore, careful consideration of cost implications is essential when making technology
choices to select the most suitable solution for each context.
The utilization of biomethane appears to be a promising prospect in the near future,
provided that its costs and incentives become more aligned with those of other sources, as
is the case in the EU. However, it is notable that some regions are already anticipating a
limit on its production. Finally, the use of TES is more efficient when configured with mul-
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 14 of 23

tiple systems, integrating energy management and electrification. Nevertheless, ongoing

advancements in these systems may offer even more optimal configurations in the future.
A limitation of these results is that policies and economic incentives can influence
decisions about energy sources applied in technologies, and economic incentives can lead
to diverse decisions that should be made based on the initial efficiency data. Basically, every
region analyzed has its own policy for increasing the share of renewable energy sources in its
energy mix. This will probably lead to cleaner electricity that can be used for the industrial
heating processes. On the one hand, this fact will result in some decarbonization. On the
other hand, choosing the most carbon-efficient technique will also gain decarbonization. It
is not the aim of this study to consider possible incentives or state support in the economic
calculations. The calculations refer to the current conditions. It should be added that
another investigation should be carried out regarding the effects of environmental economic
incentives to support the development of renewable energy use and to support those
solutions that in their current sate are not so favorable economically, but would be more
favorable in terms of emissions reduction.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.V. and M.S.; methodology, D.V.; validation, D.V., M.S.
and T.K.; formal analysis, D.V.; investigation, D.V.; resources, D.V. and T.K.; data curation, D.V.;
writing—original draft preparation, D.V. and T.K.; writing—review and editing, D.V., T.K. and M.S.;
visualization, D.V.; supervision, T.K. and M.S.; project administration, T.K.; funding acquisition, T.K.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: APC was funded by Budapest Business University Research Fund.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: This research was carried out in the framework of the MSc Thesis of Danieli
Veronesi at Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Science (Hungary) supervised by Tímea Kocsis and
co-supervised by Marcel Soulier.
Conflicts of Interest: Author Marcel Soulier was employed by the company Henkel AG & Co. KGaA.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or
financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Appendix A
A.1. Conversion of Coal Prices from USD/Ton to USD/kWh
1. Assumptions:
• The heat content of coal is assumed to be 6600 kcal/kg.
1
• The conversion factor from kcal to kWh is approximately 860 kWh/kcal, because
1 kWh = 860 kcal.
• Given coal prices in USD/t:

Table A1. Coal prices used in the calculations.

Country Price
Brazil 143.34 USD/t
China 108.20 USD/t
European Union 184.19 USD/t
Saudi Arabia 184.19 USD/t
United States 143.34 USD/t

2. Conversion Formula:
The cost of coal was converted from USD per metric ton (USD/mt) to USD per
kilowatt-hour (USD/kWh) using the following steps:
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 15 of 23

• The cost per metric ton was converted to cost per kg by dividing by 1000, given there
are 1000 kg in a metric ton.
• The cost per kg was used to find the cost per kcal by dividing it by the heat content
per kg.
• The cost per kcal was then converted to cost per kWh using the conversion factor.

CostinUSD/mt 1
Cost in USD/kWh = × ×860 kcal/kg
1000 6600 kcal/kg
3. Calculations:
After performing the calculations, the converted price could be found:
• Brazil: 0.01868 USD/kWh
• China: 0.01410 USD/kWh
• European Union: 0.01678 USD/kWh
• Saudi Arabia: 0.01678 USD/kWh
• United States: 0.01868 USD/kWh

A.2. Conversion of Biomass Prices from USD/Ton to USD/kWh

1. Assumptions:
• For conversion from mmBtu to GJ, it was assumed that 1 mmBtu = 1.055 GJ.
• The conversion factor from GJ to kWh is given as 1 GJ = 277.778 kWh.
2. Calculation:
Given the biomass prices and heat content:
Brazil (Sugarcane Bagasse):
• Price per ton: 55 USD
• Heat content: 8.96 GJ/ton
55
• USD/GJ: 8.96 = 6.14
1
• USD/kWh: 6.14 × 277.77 = 0.024
European Union (Woody Biomass):
• Price per ton: 370 USD
• Heat content: 17 mmBtu/ton (converted to GJ)
• USD/GJ: 17×3701.055 = 20,63
1
• USD/kWh: 20.63 × 277.77 = 0.0743
United States (Wood and Wood Residuals):
• Price per ton: 222.46 USD
• Heat content: 17 mmBtu/ton (converted to GJ)
• USD/GJ: 17222.46
×1.055 = 12.41
1
• USD/kWh: 12.41 × 277.77 = 0.044

Appendix B
Additional data include green electricity prices for the regions under study, as well as
calculations based on equipment efficiency.
Summary of green electricity costs discussed in Section 2.4.
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 16 of 23

Table A2. Compilation of green electricity prices for PPAs.

Region/Country Green Electricity Cost (USD/kWh)

Brazil 0.026
China 0.091
European Union 0.062
Saudi Arabia 0.032
United States 0.040

Table A3. Calculations of emissions and costs fromthe solutions using green electricity and consider-
ing the COP.

kgCO2 e and Region/Country

Technology COP USD/kWh European Saudi United
Energy Output Brazil China
Union Arabia States
CO2 e 0. 0 0 0 0
Heat pump 3
Energy cost 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01
CO2 e 0 0 0 0 0
Electric boiler 1 Energy cost 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.04
Thermal energy CO2 e 0 0 0 0 0
storage 0.85
Energy cost 0.03 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.05
CO2 e 0 0 0 0 0
Electric arcfurnace 1 Energy cost 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.04

Appendix C

Table A4. Rankings in Brazil for energy solutions at low and medium temperatures, compared with
natural gas usage.

kgCO2 e/kWh
CO2 e 0.233
Comparison: Output
COP: 0.8
Natural Gas Energy Price USD/kWh Output 0.053
kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy
Technology USD/tonCO2 e Saved
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh cost (USD/kWh)
Biomass boiler 0.009 0.04 0.224 −0.10 −447.37
Heat pump 0.014 0.06 0.218 −0.08 −376.24
Electric boiler 0.043 0.17 0.190 0.03 164.91
Biomethane boiler 0 0.31 0.233 0.17 747.31

Table A5. Comparison using green electricity for the low-temperature scenario in Brazil.

kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy

Technology USD/tonCO2 e Saved
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Cost (USD/kWh)
Heat pump 0 0.009 0.233 −130 −559.50
Electric boiler 0 0.026 0.233 −113 −485.95

Table A6. Rankings in Brazil for energy solutions at high temperatures, compared with natural gas usage.

kgCO2 e/kWh
CO2 e 0.233
Comparison—Gas Output
COP: 0.8
Boiler Energy Price USD/kWh Output 0.053
kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy USD/TonCO2 e
Technology
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh cost (USD/kWh) Saved
Electric arc furnace 0.043 0.17 0.190 0.03 164.90
Thermal energy
0.051 0.20 0.182 0.06 336.70
storage
Biomethane furnace 0 0.31 0.233 0.17 747.31
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 17 of 23

Table A7. Comparison using green electricity for the high-temperature scenario in Brazil.

kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy USD/TonCO2 e

Technology
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh cost (USD/kWh) Saved
Electric arc furnace 0 0.026 0.233 −0.113 −485.90
Thermal energy
0 0.031 0.233 −0.108 −465.20
storage

Appendix D

Table A8. Rankings in China for energy solutions at low temperatures, compared with natural gas usage.

kgCO2 e/kWh
Comparison: CO2 e 0.23
COP: 0.8 Output
Natural Gas
Energy Price USD/kWh Output 0.06
Energy price Reduction in Increase in energy
Technology kgCO2 e/kWh output USD/tonCO2 e saved
USD/kWh output kgCO2 e/kWh cost (USD/kWh)
Heat pump 0.186 0.03 0.047 −0.03 −645.90
Biomass boiler 0.010 0.09 0.223 0.03 122.79
Biomethane boiler 0.000 0.24 0.233 0.18 758.06
Electric boiler 0.557 0.09 −0.325 0.03 97.84

Table A9. Comparison using green electricity for the low-temperature scenario in China.

kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy USD/tonCO2 e

Technology
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Cost (USD/kWh) Saved
Heat pump 0.00 0.03 0.233 −0.03 −133.10
Electric boiler 0.00 0.09 0.233 0.03 128.10

Table A10. Rankings in China for energy solutions at medium and high temperatures, compared
with coal usage.

kgCO2e/kWh
CO2 e 0.595
Comparison: Coal COP: 0.6 Output
Energy Price USD/kWh Output 0.02
kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy
Technology USD/tonCO2 e Saved
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh cost (USD/kWh)
Gas boiler/furnace 0.233 0.06 0.363 0.04 104.60
Biomass
0.010 0.09 0.585 0.07 111.52
boiler/furnace
Biomethane
0.000 0.24 0.595 0.21 359.94
boiler/furnace
Electric boiler 0.557 0.09 0.038 0.07 1833.33
Electric arc furnace 0.557 0.09 0.038 0.07 1833.33
Thermal energy
0.655 0.11 −0.060 0.09 1427.64
storage
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 18 of 23

Table A11. Comparison using green electricity for the medium- and high-temperature scenarios in
China.

kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy USD/tonCO2 e

Technology
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Cost (USD/kWh) Saved
Electric boiler 0.00 0.09 0.595 0.07 113.78
Electric arc furnace 0.00 0.09 0.595 0.07 113.78
Thermal energy
0.00 0.11 0.595 0.08 140.77
storage

Appendix E

Table A12. Ranking of EU energy solutions at low and medium temperatures, compared with natural
gas usage.

kgCO2 e/kWh
Comparison: CO2 e 0.23
COP: 0.8 Output
Natural Gas
Energy Price USD/kWh Output 0.06
kgCO2 e per kWh Energy Price USD Reduction in Increase in Energy
Technology USD/tonCO2 e Saved
Output per kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Cost (USD/kWh)
Heat pump 0.120 0.07 0.113 −0.03 −285.18
Biomass boiler 0.039 0.10 0.194 0.00 3.83
Biomethane boiler 0.00 0.24 0.233 0.14 596.77
Electric boiler 0.360 0.20 −0.128 0.10 794.12

Table A13. Comparison using green electricity for the low- and-medium temperature scenarios in the EU.

kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy USD/tonCO2 e

Technology
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Cost (USD/kWh) Saved
Heat pump 0.00 0.02 0.233 −0.08 −335.65
Electric boiler 0.00 0.06 0.233 −0.04 −157.50

Table A14. Ranking of EU energy solutions for high temperatures, compared with coal usage.

kgCO2 e/kWh
CO2 e 0.60
Comparison: Coal COP: 0.6 Output
Energy Price USD/kWh Output 0.04
kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy
Technology USD/tonCO2 e Saved
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Cost (USD/kWh)
Biomass
0.04 0.10 0.56 0.06 106.92
boiler/furnace
Gas boiler/furnace 0.23 0.10 0.36 0.06 162.07
Biomethane
0.00 0.24 0.60 0.20 331.93
boiler/furnace
Electric arc furnace 0.36 0.20 0.24 0.16 680.85
Thermal energy
0.42 0.24 0.17 0.20 1138.94
storage

Table A15. Comparison using green electricity for the high-temperature scenario in the EU.

kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy USD/tonCO2 e

Technology
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Cost (USD/kWh) Saved
Electric air calciner 0.00 0.06 0.60 0.02 37.19
Thermal energy
0.00 0.07 0.60 0.03 55.62
storage
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 19 of 23

Appendix F

Table A16. Ranking of Saudi Arabia’s energy solutions for low temperatures, compared with diesel
usage.

kgCO2 e/kWh
CO2 e 0.38
Comparison: Diesel COP: 0.7 Output
Energy Price USD/kWh Output 0.01
kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy
Technology USD/tonCO2 e Saved
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Cost (USD/kWh)
Gas boiler 0.23 0.01 0.15 0.002 11.864
Heat pump 0.20 0.02 0.18 0.01 66.540
Electric boiler 0.61 0.06 −0.23 0.05 217.949

Table A17. Comparison using green electricity for the low-temperature scenario in Saudi Arabia.

Increase in
kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in USD/tonCO2 e
Technology ENERGY cost
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Saved
(USD/kWh)
Heat pump 0.00 0.01 0.38 0.003 7.018
Electric boiler 0.00 0.03 0.38 0.024 63.158

Table A18. Ranking of Saudi Arabia’s energy solutions for medium and high temperatures, compared
with diesel usage.

kgCO2 e/kWh
CO2 e 0.380
Comparison: Diesel COP: 0.7 Output
Energy Price USD/kWh Output 0.01
kgCO2 e/kWh Energy price Reduction in Increase in Energy
Technology USD/tonCO2 e Saved
Output USD/kWh OUTPUT kgCO2 e/kWh cost (USD/kWh)
Gas boiler/furnace 0.233 0.01 0.148 0.002 11.86
Electric boiler 0.614 0.06 −0.234 0.050 217.95
Electric arc furnace 0.614 0.06 −0.234 0.051 217.95
Thermal energy
0.723 0.07 −0.342 0.061 179.38
storage

Table A19. Comparison using green electricity for the medium- and high-temperature scenarios in
Saudi Arabia.

kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy USD/tonCO2 e

Technology
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Cost (USD/kWh) Saved
Electric boiler 0 0.032 0.380 0.02 63.158
Electric Arc
0 0.032 0.380 0.02 63.158
Furnace
Thermal energy
0 0.038 0.380 0.03 78.019
storage
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 20 of 23

Appendix G

Table A20. Ranking of US energy solutions for low and medium temperatures, compared with
natural gas.

kgCO2 e/kWh
Comparison: CO2 e 0.23
COP: 0.8 Output
Natural Gas
Energy Price USD/kWh Output 0.06
kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy
Technology USD/tonCO2 e Saved
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Cost (USD/kWh)
Heat pump 0.13 0.03 0.10 -0.03 −330.60
Biomass boiler 0.01 0.06 0.23 0.003 12.60
Biomethane boiler 0.00 0.24 0.23 0.18 763.40
Electric boiler 0.39 0.08 −0.16 0.02 115.01

Table A21. Comparison using green electricity for the low- and medium-temperature scenarios in the
US.

kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy USD/tonCO2 e

Technology
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Cost (USD/kWh) Saved
Heat pump 0 0.01 0.23 −0.05 −201.004
Electric boiler 0 0.04 0.23 −0.02 −86.882

Table A22. Ranking of US energy solutions for high temperatures, compared with natural gas.

kgCO2 e/kWh
Comparison: CO2 e 0.23
COP: 0.8 Output
Natural Gas
Energy Price USD/kWh Output 0.06
kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy
Technology USD/tonCO2 e Saved
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Cost (USD/kWh)
Biomass
0.01 0.06 0.23 0.003 12.60
boiler/furnace
Biomethane
0.00 0.24 0.23 0.18 763.44
boiler/furnace
Electric arc furnace 0.39 0.09 −0.16 0.03 202.97
Thermal energy
0.46 0.09 −0.23 0.03 141.08
storage

Table A23. Comparison using green electricity for the high-temperature scenario in the US.

kgCO2 e/kWh Energy Price Reduction in Increase in Energy USD/tonCO2 e

Technology
Output USD/kWh Output kgCO2 e/kWh Cost (USD/kWh) Saved
Electric arc furnace 0.00 0.04 0.23 −0.020 −86.88
Thermal energy
0.00 0.05 0.23 −0.013 −56.67
storage

References
1. International Energy Agency, IEA CO2 Emissions in 2022. Available online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/3c8fa115
-35c4-4474-b237-1b00424c8844/CO2Emissionsin2022.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2024).
2. UNFCCC (2018): What is the Paris Agreement? 2024. Available online: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-
agreement (accessed on 6 August 2024).
3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V.,
Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., et al., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2021.
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 21 of 23

4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Sections. In Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working
Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Team, C.W., Lee, H., Romero, J.,
Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 35–115. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/
IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2024).
5. Clarke, L.; Wei, Y.-M.; De La Vega Navarro, A.; Garg, A.; Hahmann, A.N.; Khennas, S.; Azevedo, I.M.L.; Löschel, A.; Singh, A.K.;
Steg, L.; et al. Energy Systems. In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III
to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A.,
van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK; New York, NY, USA, 2022; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_
FullReport.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2024).
6. European Commission 2050 Long-Term Strategy. 2022. Available online: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/climate-
strategies-targets/2050-long-term-strategy_en (accessed on 6 August 2024).
7. Gössling, S.; Humpe, A.; Sun, Y.-Y. On track to net-zero? Large tourism enterprises and climate change. Tour. Manag. 2024,
100, 104842. [CrossRef]
8. Science Based Targets, STB (2024): SBTi MONITORING REPORT 2023. Available online: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/
resources/files/SBTiMonitoringReport2023.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2024).
9. Sharma, A.; Priya, G.S.K.; Bandyopadhyay, S. Industrial decarbonization: A revolution ahead. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2023,
25, 2467–2468. [CrossRef]
10. Greenhouse Gas Protocol Standard. 2004. Available online: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-
protocol-revised.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2024).
11. Engie Impact. Available online: https://www.engieimpact.com/insights/decarbonizing-heat-manufacturing (accessed on 5
August 2024).
12. Schmidt, M.; Nill, M.; Scholz, J. Determining the Scope 3 Emissions of Companies. In Chemical Engineering Technology; Wiley
Online Library: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 1218–1230. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1
002/ceat.202200181 (accessed on 20 February 2024).
13. Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Scopes. Available online: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/standards_supporting/
Diagram%20of%20scopes%20and%20emissions%20across%20the%20value%20chain.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2024).
14. Zhou, Y. Climate change adaptation with energy resilience in energy districts—A state-of-the-art review. Energy Build. 2023,
279, 112649. [CrossRef]
15. Mullinger, P.; Jenkins, B. Industrial and Process Furnaces: Principles, Design and Operation, 3rd ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford,
UK, 2022; ISBN 9780323916295.
16. Schüwer, D.; Schneider, C. Electrification of Industrial Process Heat: Long-Term Applications, Potentials and Impacts. ECEEE
Industry Proceedings. 2018. Available online: https://www.eceee.org/library/conference_proceedings/eceee_Industrial_
Summer_Study/2018/4-technology-products-and-system-optimisation/electrification-of-industrial-process-heat-long-term-
applications-potentials-and-impacts/ (accessed on 20 February 2024).
17. Rissman, J. Decarbonizing Low-Temperature Industrial Heat in the U.S. Energy Innovation Policy and Technology LLC 2022.
Available online: https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Decarbonizing-Low-Temperature-Industrial-
Heat-In-The-U.S.-Report-2.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2024).
18. Bellos, E.; Arabkoohsar, A.; Lykas, P.; Sammoutos, C.; Kitsopoulou, A.; Tzivanidis, C. Investigation of a solar-driven absorption
heat transformer with various collector types for industrial process heating. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2024, 244, 122665. [CrossRef]
19. Walden, J.V.M.; Wellig, B.; Stathopoulos, P. Heat pump integration in non-continuous industrial processes by Dynamic Pinch
Analysis Targeting. Appl. Energy 2023, 352, 121933. [CrossRef]
20. Thiel, G.P.; Stark, A.K. To decarbonize industry, we must decarbonize heat. Joule 2021, 5, 531–550. [CrossRef]
21. Pisciotta, M.; Pilorgé, H.; Feldmann, J.; Jacobson, R.; Davids, J.; Swett, S.; Sasso, Z.; Wilcox, J. Current state of industrial heating
and opportunities for decarbonization. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2022, 91, 100982. [CrossRef]
22. Kumar, R.K.; Chaitanya, K.; Kumar, S.N. Solar thermal energy technologies and its applications for process heating and power
generation e A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 282, 125296. [CrossRef]
23. Energy Transition Commission China 2050: A Fully Developed Rich Zero-Carbon Economy. 2019. Available online:
https://www.energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CHINA_2050_A_FULLY_DEVELOPED_RICH_ZERO_
CARBON_ECONOMY_ENGLISH.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2024).
24. Juangsa, F.B.; Cezeliano, A.S.; Aziz, M. Thermodynamic analysis of hydrogen utilization as alternative fuel in cement production.
South Afr. J. Chem. Eng. 2022, 42, 23–31. [CrossRef]
25. Ali, H.M.; Rehman, T.; Arıcı, M.; Said, Z.; Duraković, B.; Mohammed, H.I.; Kumar, R.; Rathod, M.K.; Büyükdağlı, Ö.; Teggar, M.
Advances in thermal energy storage: Fundamentals and applications. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2024, 100, 101109. [CrossRef]
26. Ma, J.; Li, L.; Wang, H.; Du, Y.; Ma, J.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Z. Carbon Capture and Storage: History and the Road Ahead. Engineering
2022, 14, 33–43. [CrossRef]
27. Mikunda, T.; Brunner, L.; Skylogianni, E.; Monteiro, J.; Rycroft, L.; Kemper, J. Carbon capture and storage and the sustainable
development goals. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2021, 108, 103318. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 22 of 23

28. International Renewable Energy Agency A ROADMAP TO 2050. 2019. Available online: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/
IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Apr/IRENA_Global_Energy_Transformation_2019.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2024).
29. FGV EAESP Programa Brasileiro GHG Protocol. 2023. Available online: https://eaesp.fgv.br/sites/eaesp.fgv.br/files/u1087/
ferramenta_ghg_protocol_v2024.0.2.xlsx (accessed on 10 March 2024).
30. Carbon Footprint Country Specific Electricity Grid Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors. 2023. Available online: https://www.
carbonfootprint.com/docs/2023_02_emissions_factors_sources_for_2022_electricity_v10.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2024).
31. Bastos, J.; Monforti-Ferrario, F.; Melica, G. GHG Emission Factors for Electricity Consumption. European Commission, Joint
Research Centre (JRC). [Dataset] PID. 2024. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/89h/919df040-0252-4e4e-ad82-c054896e1641
(accessed on 1 March 2024).
32. US Environmental Protection Agency: GHG Emission Factors Hub, ARCHIVED 2023 GHG Emission Factors Hub (xlsx). Available
online: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ghg-emission-factors-hub (accessed on 10 October 2023).
33. Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy Informationsblatt CO2 -Faktoren. Bundesförderung für Energie- und
Ressourceneffizienz in der Wirtschaft—Zuschuss. 2022. Available online: https://www.bafa.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/
Energie/eew_infoblatt_co2_faktoren_2022.html (accessed on 28 November 2023).
34. EPBR: Geração de Energia Com Biomassa Cresceu 7% de Janeiro a Julho de 2023. Available online: https://epbr.com.br/
bioeletricidade-no-brasil-geracao-de-energia-com-biomassa-cresceu-7-de-janeiro-a-julho-de-2023/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CA%
20cana%20%E2%80%93%20baga%C3%A7o%20e%20palha,gerente%20de%20Bioeletricidade%20da%20Unica (accessed on 20
August 2023).
35. Guo, H.; Cui, J.; Li, J. Biomass power generation in China: Status, policies and recommendations. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 687–696.
[CrossRef]
36. Directorate-General for Energy Bioenergy Report Outlines Progress Being Made Across the EU. European Commission. 2023.
Available online: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/bioenergy-report-outlines-progress-being-made-across-eu-2023-10-27_en
(accessed on 28 November 2023).
37. Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft Benefits and Importance of Bioenergy. 2022. Available on-
line: https://www.bmel.de/DE/themen/landwirtschaft/bioeokonomie-nachwachsende-rohstoffe/bioenergie-nutzen-
bedeutung.html#:~:text=(4%20Prozent).-,Stromerzeugung,fester%20Biomasse%20in%20Feuerungs-%20bzw (accessed on 28
November 2023).
38. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Saudi Arabia’s energy overview. 2021. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/
international/analysis/country/SAU/ (accessed on 11 March 2024).
39. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Monthly Densified Biomass Fuel Report. 2023. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/
biofuels/biomass/ (accessed on 2 March 2024).
40. Statista Industrial Electricity Price in Brazil from January to November 2023 (in Brazilian Reals per Megawatt-Hour). 2024.
Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1173609/brazil-monthly-industrial-electricity-price/ (accessed on 20
March 2024).
41. GlobalPetrolPrices.com. Brazil Fuel Prices, Electricity Prices, Natural Gas Prices. 2024. Available online: https://www.
globalpetrolprices.com/Brazil/ (accessed on 8 March 2024).
42. MF Rural. (n.d.). Alimentos para Nutrição Animal > Cana de Açucar > Bagaco de Cana. Available online: https://www.mfrural.com.
br/produtos/3-345/nutricao-animal-cana-de-acucar-bagaco (accessed on 3 March 2024).
43. Garlet, R.; Fagundez, J.S.; Hausen, R.B.; Roso, V.R.; Lanzanova, T.D.M.; Gonçalves Salau, N.P.G.; Martins, M.E.S. Prospects of
Performance, Emissions and Cost of Biomethane as a Fuel in a Spark-Ignition Engine Compared to Conventional Brazilian Fuels.
SSRN Electron. J. 2023. [CrossRef]
44. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Quarterly Coal Report. 2024. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/
quarterly/ (accessed on 20 March 2024).
45. Deng, N.; Wang, B.; He, L.; Liu, J.; Wang, Z. Does electricity price reduction bring a sustainable development of business: Evidence
from fine-grained industrial electricity consumption data in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 335, 117522. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. CEIC Data China Usage Price: 36 City Avg: Natural Gas: Natural Gas for Public Service Sector. 2024. Available on-
line: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/price-monitoring-center-ndrc-36-city-monthly-avg-transaction-price-production-
material/cn-usage-price-36-city-avg-natural-gas-natural-gas-for-public-service-sector (accessed on 12 March 2024).
47. International Energy Agency An Introduction to Biogas and Biomethane. 2018. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/
outlook-for-biogas-and-biomethane-prospects-for-organic-growth (accessed on 12 April 2024).
48. International Energy Agency Coal Market Update—July 2023. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-market-
update-july-2023 (accessed on 15 March 2024).
49. Eurostat Electricity Prices for non-Household Consumers—Bi-Annual Data (from 2007 Onwards) (€/kWh) Undefined 2023—Band
ID: 2 000 MWh <Consumption <20 000 MWh. 2023. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/nrg_
pc_205/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 1 March 2024).
50. Deutsche Energie-Agentur Marktmonitoring Bioenergie 2023: Datenerhebungen, Einschätzungen und Prognosen zu Entwicklun-
gen, Chancen und Herausforderungen des Bioenergiemarktes. 2023. Available online: https://www.dena.de/fileadmin/dena/
Publikationen/PDFs/2023/ANALYSE_Marktmonitoring_Bioenergie_2023.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2024).
Energies 2024, 17, 5728 23 of 23

51. World Bank Commodities Price Data (The Pink Sheet). 2024. Available online: http://www.worldbank.org/commodities
(accessed on 4 March 2024).
52. Climatescope by Bloomberg NEF. Saudi Arabia Power Ranking and Score. 2022. Available online: https://www.global-
climatescope.org/markets/sa/ (accessed on 14 April 2024).
53. Intratec Solutions Natural Gas Price|Saudi Arabia—Q1 2023. Intratec Products Blog. Medium. 2023. Available on-
line: https://medium.com/intratec-products-blog/natural-gas-price-saudi-arabia-q1-2023-81bb41adbf6c (accessed on 2
October 2023).
54. Darandary, A.; Mikayilov, I.L.; Soummane, S. Impacts of electricity price reform on Saudi regional fuel consumption and CO2
emissions. Energy Econ. 2024, 131, 107400. [CrossRef]
55. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Table 5.6.A. Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, February
2024. Electric Power Monthly.. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/ (accessed on 11 March 2024).
56. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Average Energy Prices for the United States, Regions, Census Divisions, and Selected Metropolitan
Areas. 2024. Available online: https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/data/averageenergyprices_selectedareas_table.htm
(accessed on 15 March 2024).
57. Bogdanov, D.; Satymov, R.; Breyer, C. Impact of temperature dependent coefficient of performance of heat pumps on heating
systems in national and regional energy systems modelling. Appl. Energy 2024, 371, 123647. [CrossRef]
58. Ministério de Minas e Energia 2031 Ten-Year Energy Expansion Plan. Secretaria de Planejamento e Desenvolvimento Energético.
2022. Available online: https://www.gov.br/mme/pt-br/assuntos/secretarias/sntep/publicacoes/plano-decenal-de-expansao-
de-energia/pde-2031/english-version/relatorio_pde-2031_cap11_eus.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2024).
59. Lopes, F. Centralized vs. Distributed Generation: The Balance of Brazil’s Solar Future. RatedPower. 2023. Available online:
https://ratedpower.com/blog/centralized-vs-distributed-generation-brazil/ (accessed on 20 March 2024).
60. International Energy Agency Renewables 2022: Analysis and Forecast to 2027. IEA. 2022. Available online: https://www.iea.org/
reports/renewables-2022 (accessed on 14 April 2024).
61. Herrera, A. The Largest PV Plants in Brazil. RatedPower. 2023. Available online: https://ratedpower.com/blog/largest-pv-
plants-in-Brazil/ (accessed on 20 May 2024).
62. International Energy Agency The Future of Heat Pumps in China. IEA 2024. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/the-
future-of-heat-pumps-in-china (accessed on 10 March 2024).
63. Maguire, G. Industrial Heat Set for Major Energy Source Overhaul by 2050. Reuters. 2023. Available online: https://www.reuters.
com/commodities/industrial-heat-set-for-major-energy-source-overhaul-by-2050-2023-04-11/ (accessed on 20 March 2024).
64. Statista Levelized Cost of Energy in China in Selected Years from 2010 to 2024, by Source (in U.S. Dollars per Megawatt
Hour). 2022. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1327637/levelized-cost-of-energy-in-china/ (accessed on 20
March 2024).
65. European Environment Agency Trends and Projections in Europe 2023. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/trends-and-projections-in-europe-2023 (accessed on 10 March 2024).
66. European Environment Agency Share of Energy Consumption from Renewable Sources in Europe. European Environment
Agency. 2024. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/share-of-energy-consumption-from
(accessed on 20 March 2024).
67. LevelTen Energy. Contract Prices for Renewable Power are Up 30%. What’s going on? Canary Media. 2023. Available online:
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/sponsored/levelten-ppa-report (accessed on 15 April 2024).
68. European Biogas Association. EBA Statistical Report 2023 Launch Webinar. 2023. Available online: https://www.europeanbiogas.
eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/EBA-Statistical-Report-2023-Launch-webinar.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2024).
69. Climate Transparency Saudi Arabia: Climate Transparency Report: Comparing G20 Climate Actions Towards Net Zero—2021.
Available online: https://www.climate-transparency.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CT2021SaudiArabia.pdf (accessed on
14 April 2024).
70. Amran, Y.H.; Amran, Y.H.M.; Alyousef, R.; Alabduljabbar, H. Renewable and sustainable energy production in Saudi Arabia
according to Saudi Vision 2030: Current status and future prospects. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119602. [CrossRef]
71. Bellini, E. Solar PPAs Viable in Saudi Arabia at Prices Above $26.10/MWh. pv Magazine. 2024. Available online:
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/01/17/solar-ppas-viable-in-saudi-arabia-at-prices-above-26-10-mwh/ (accessed on 10
April 2024).
72. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Short-Term Energy Outlook May 2024. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/
outlooks/steo/pdf/steo_full.pdf/ (accessed on 1 March 2024).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.