# Strategic Resource Planning for Sustainable Biogas Integration in Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems
## 3 Results
This increased biomass reflects the need to meet the 24 h continuous demand during the one month when solar panels are out of service in Scenario 2. The dual numbers in the supply step (e.g., 90/60 h in Case 1) indicate that biomass is supplied every 90 h throughout the year. Still, during the month when solar panels are offline, the supply must be increased to every 60 h to ensure continuous biogas production. This adjustment in Scenario 2 is necessary to maintain a steady biogas supply during the 24 h demand period. The release rate in Scenario 2 is consistently lower than in Scenario 1, indicating that more biogas is utilized or stored rather than released. For example, in Case 1, the release rate decreases from 35.17% to 31.73%. This suggests that Scenario 2, with the extended demand period, results in more efficient use of biogas, as more of it is required to meet the continuous demand. The biomass cost increases slightly in Scenario 2 due to the higher total biomass input. For example, in Case 1, the biomass cost rises from USD 16,500 to USD 16,995. Similarly, transportation costs increase in Scenario 2 because of the more frequent biomass deliveries required during the 24 h demand period. The total cost in Scenario 2 is generally higher across all cases due to the increased biomass input and more frequent trips required to supply the reactor. For example, in Case 1, the total cost rises from USD 37,590 in Scenario 1 to USD 38,730 in Scenario 2. The higher costs reflect the need to maintain continuous biogas availability during the extended operational period. Generally, Scenario 2 results in higher costs due to increased biomass input and more frequent deliveries. However, it also leads to lower release rates, indicating more efficient use of the biogas to meet the continuous 24 h demand during the solar panel outage period. While Scenario 2 incurs higher costs, it ensures that biogas is available for longer, maintaining a stable energy supply during the critical month. A comparative examination of the biogas release rates and overall costs in Scenarios 1 and 2 reveals distinct efficiency patterns. Although both scenarios ensure adequate energy supply, Scenario 2's continuous demand schedule leads to more effective use of biogas, as evidenced by \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Trips (Tons)**} & **Supply** & **Bio.** & **Generation** & **Released** & **Release** & **Bio. Cost** & **Trans. Cost** & **Total Cost** \\  & & **Step (h)** & **(Tons)** & **(m3)** & **(m3)** & **(\%)** & **(USD)** & **(USD)** & **(USD)** \\ \hline
1 & \(1\times 15\) + 100 \(\times\) 5 & 90/60 & 515 & 515,450 & 163,576 & 31.73 & 16,995 & 21,735 & 38,730 \\
2 & \(1\times 20\) + 62 \(\times\) 10 & 146/99 & 640 & 635,708 & 283,660 & 44.62 & 21,120 & 14,195 & 35,315 \\
3 & \(1\times 25\) + 45 \(\times\) 15 & 195/160 & 700 & 703,062 & 351,175 & 49.95 & 23,100 & 10,830 & 33,930 \\
4 & \(1\times 25\) + 40 \(\times\) 20 & 219/181 & 825 & 818,594 & 466,797 & 57.02 & 27,225 & 10,055 & 37,280 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Optimal results for Scenario 2.  
its lower release rates (see Table 2). In contrast, Scenario 1's intermittent demand cycle generally results in higher release percentages, indicating that excess biogas is vented to maintain safe reactor conditions. Despite the additional costs incurred in Scenario 2 to handle more frequent deliveries and increased biomass input, the net benefit of reduced venting translates into a more efficient energy utilization profile. These findings underscore the interplay between cost factors (transportation, biomass procurement) and operational outcomes (biogas usage versus release), offering a holistic view of how system design influences practical performance.