Table 9 overviews the results of the three optimizations described before.

It turned out that the profitability of a fermenter on location 2 is lower than on the other locations. It was never preferred in any optimum structure. The other locations have one advantage — the shared usage of biogas pipelines whereas low additional costs for location 1 have to be born. There are never heating pipelines from the different locations to the center considered in the optimum technology networks. Just the biogas is transported; heat is produced centrally and distributed within a district heating network, although additional biomass furnaces are required. In scenario 1 the missing corn silage availability was compensated by a higher amount of intercrops, referring to the CH4 content, and it shows the best revenue, because of higher plant utilization and higher revenue for electricity and heat production. Although in the optimal scenario the amount of corn relating to the total feedstock was not even 17 % of the total (dry matter) the compensation for corn with intercrops results in higher revenue. For more corn that intercrops compensate in the input the impact would be even higher. Therefore it is obvious that intercrops can be a profitable feedstock to run a biogas plant. For the case study the availability of intercrops would have to be raised as described before which would lead to the best technology network for the region.

The system has two limiting factors; on the one hand the distances between the fermenter locations and the feedstock providers accompanying different transport costs and on the other hand the limited resource availability. It could be shown that it is not lucrative to run a central CHP with higher capacity (500 kWel) as feed-in tariffs are lower and less revenue can be gained. Nevertheless, from the point of view of sustainability, it would be preferable to substitute two smaller CHPs with a bigger one. An adaptation of reimbursement schemes to the solutions presented is recommended.