IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v37y2009i3p1170-1179.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nonmarket cobenefits and economic feasibility of on-farm biogas energy production

Author

Listed:
  • Yiridoe, Emmanuel K.
  • Gordon, Robert
  • Brown, Bettina B.

Abstract

Standard analysis of the economic feasibility of on-farm biogas energy production tend to emphasize primarily on direct financial benefits to farmers, and abstracts from the nonmarket cobenefits associated with anaerobic digestion of livestock manure and other biomass feedstock. This shortcoming of the standard feasibility analysis raises a fundamental question: How is the economic feasibility of on-farm anaerobic biogas energy production affected by the associated nonpecuniary cobenefits? Incorporating key nonmarket cobenefits from biogas energy production extends the standard economic feasibility analysis, and provides important insights. When nonmarket cobenefits were excluded, on-farm biogas energy production was generally not financially feasible for the dairy and swine farm size ranges studied (except for 600- and 800-sow farms). Overall, results of the financial feasibility analysis did not change compared to a base scenario (without nonmarket cobenefits) when an estimated annual total nonmarket cobenefits of CND$5000 was incorporated into the analysis, for both dairy and swine farms. Biogas energy production was generally financially viable for small-size dairy (i.e., 50-cow) and swine (i.e., 200-sow) farms when the nonmarket cobenefits were valued at CND$15,000 (or higher). Improvements in financial feasibility were more dramatic for dairy than for swine farms.

Suggested Citation

  • Yiridoe, Emmanuel K. & Gordon, Robert & Brown, Bettina B., 2009. "Nonmarket cobenefits and economic feasibility of on-farm biogas energy production," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1170-1179, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:3:p:1170-1179
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(08)00665-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pannell, David J., 1997. "Sensitivity analysis of normative economic models: theoretical framework and practical strategies," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 139-152, May.
    2. Ian H. Rowlands & Daniel Scott & Paul Parker, 2003. "Consumers and green electricity: profiling potential purchasers," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 36-48, January.
    3. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F. & Levy, Alan & Russell, Matthew, 2001. "US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 917-925, September.
    4. Brown, Bettina B. & Yiridoe, Emmanuel K. & Gordon, Robert, 2007. "Impact of single versus multiple policy options on the economic feasibility of biogas energy production: Swine and dairy operations in Nova Scotia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 4597-4610, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ivan Diaz‐Rainey & John K. Ashton, 2011. "Profiling potential green electricity tariff adopters: green consumerism as an environmental policy tool?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(7), pages 456-470, November.
    2. Dagher, Leila & Bird, Lori & Heeter, Jenny, 2017. "Residential green power demand in the United States," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(PB), pages 1062-1068.
    3. Yang, Yingkui & Solgaard, Hans Stubbe & Haider, Wolfgang, 2016. "Wind, hydro or mixed renewable energy source: Preference for electricity products when the share of renewable energy increases," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 521-531.
    4. Qingbin Wang & Laurel Valchuis & Ethan Thompson & David Conner & Robert Parsons, 2019. "Consumer Support and Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Solar, Wind, and Cow Manure in the United States: Evidence from a Survey in Vermont," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    5. Ek, Kristina & Söderholm, Patrik, 2008. "Norms and economic motivation in the Swedish green electricity market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 169-182, December.
    6. Gracia, Azucena & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Pérez y Pérez, Luis, 2012. "Can renewable energy be financed with higher electricity prices? Evidence from a Spanish region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 784-794.
    7. Brown, Bettina B. & Yiridoe, Emmanuel K. & Gordon, Robert, 2007. "Impact of single versus multiple policy options on the economic feasibility of biogas energy production: Swine and dairy operations in Nova Scotia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 4597-4610, September.
    8. Garces-Voisenat, Juan-Pedro & Mukherjee, Zinnia, 2016. "Paying for green energy: The case of the Chilean Patagonia," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 397-414.
    9. Herbes, Carsten & Ramme, Iris, 2014. "Online marketing of green electricity in Germany—A content analysis of providers’ websites," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 257-266.
    10. Soon, Jan-Jan & Ahmad, Siti-Aznor, 2015. "Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 877-887.
    11. Ritsuko Ozaki, 2011. "Adopting sustainable innovation: what makes consumers sign up to green electricity?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, January.
    12. Ward, David O. & Clark, Christopher D. & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Yen, Steven T., 2011. "Consumer willingness to pay for appliances produced by Green Power Partners," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1095-1102.
    13. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    14. Herbes, Carsten & Friege, Christian & Baldo, Davide & Mueller, Kai-Markus, 2015. "Willingness to pay lip service? Applying a neuroscience-based method to WTP for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 562-572.
    15. Calikoglu, Umit & Aydinalp Koksal, Merih, 2022. "Green electricity and Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin demand analysis for Türkiye," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    16. Torsten J. Gerpott & Ilaha Mahmudova, 2010. "Determinants of price mark‐up tolerance for green electricity – lessons for environmental marketing strategies from a study of residential electricity customers in Germany," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(5), pages 304-318, July.
    17. Kopke, Emma & Kingwell, Ross S. & Young, John, 2005. "A farm-level economic assessment of the Australian Merino, Dohne Merino, and South African Meat Merino sheep breeds in southern Australia," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137934, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    19. Tabi, Andrea & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2014. "What makes people seal the green power deal? — Customer segmentation based on choice experiment in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 206-215.
    20. van Putten, Marloes & Lijesen, Mark & Özel, Tanju & Vink, Nancy & Wevers, Harm, 2014. "Valuing the preferences for micro-generation of renewables by househoulds," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 596-604.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:3:p:1170-1179. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.