IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v48y2012icp790-798.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic sustainability of a biomass energy project located at a dairy in California, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Kay Camarillo, Mary
  • Stringfellow, William T.
  • Jue, Michael B.
  • Hanlon, Jeremy S.

Abstract

Previous experience has demonstrated the tenuous nature of biomass energy projects located at livestock facilities in the U.S. In response, the economic sustainability of a 710kW combined heat and power biomass energy system located on a dairy farm in California was evaluated. This biomass energy facility is unique in that a complete-mix anaerobic digester was used for treatment of manure collected in a flush-water system, co-digestates were used as additional digester feedstocks (whey, waste feed, and plant biomass), and the power plant is operating under strict regulatory requirements for stack gas emissions. Electricity was produced and sold wholesale, and cost savings resulted from the use of waste heat to offset propane demand. The impact of various operational factors was considered in the economic analysis, indicating that the system is economically viable as constructed but could benefit from introduction of additional substrates to increase methane and electricity production, additional utilization of waste heat, sale of digested solids, and possibly pursuing greenhouse gas credits. Use of technology for nitrogen oxide (NOx) removal had a minimal effect on economic sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Kay Camarillo, Mary & Stringfellow, William T. & Jue, Michael B. & Hanlon, Jeremy S., 2012. "Economic sustainability of a biomass energy project located at a dairy in California, USA," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 790-798.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:48:y:2012:i:c:p:790-798
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512005277
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. William F. Lazarus & Margaretha Rudstrom, 2007. "The Economics of Anaerobic Digester Operation on a Minnesota Dairy Farm," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 349-364.
    2. William F. Lazarus & Margaretha Rudstrom, 2007. "The Economics of Anaerobic Digester Operation on a Minnesota Dairy Farm," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 349-364.
    3. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway, 2009. "The Economics of Dairy Anaerobic Digestion with Coproduct Marketing," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 394-410, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luhmann, Henrike & Schape, Christian & Theuvsen, Ludwig & Weiland, Ingke, 2016. "Was Bedingt Die Bereitschaft Deutscher Milcherzeuger Zur Teilnahme An Einem Nachhaltigkeitsstandard? Ergebnisse Einer Empirischen Untersuchung," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244758, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Benavidez, Justin & Thayer, Anastasia W., 2018. "Poo Power: Revisiting Energy Generation from Biogas on Dairies in Texas," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266636, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Anh Sam & Xiang Bi & Derek Farnsworth, 2017. "How Incentives Affect the Adoption of Anaerobic Digesters in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-14, July.
    4. Camarillo, Mary Kay & Stringfellow, William T. & Hanlon, Jeremy S. & Watson, Kyle A., 2013. "Investigation of selective catalytic reduction for control of nitrogen oxides in full-scale dairy energy production," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 328-336.
    5. Luhmann, Henrike & Schaper, Christian & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2016. "Acceptance of a Sustainability Standard: Evidence from an Empirical Study of Future-Oriented Dairy Farmers," 2016 International European Forum (151st EAAE Seminar), February 15-19, 2016, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 244538, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    6. T. Chen & M. Liu & Y. Takahashi & J.D. Mullen & G.C.W. Ames, 2016. "Carbon emission reduction and cost--benefit of methane digester systems on hog farms in China," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 948-966, June.
    7. Benavidez, Justin R. & Thayer, Anastasia W. & Anderson, David P., 2019. "Poo Power: Revisiting Biogas Generation Potential on Dairy Farms in Texas," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 682-700, November.
    8. Luhmann, Henrike & Schaper, Christian & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2016. "Future-Oriented Dairy Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in a Sustainability Standard: Evidence from an Empirical Study in Germany," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 7(3), pages 1-15, July.

    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. Cowley, Cortney & Brorsen, B. Wade, 2018. "Anaerobic Digester Production and Cost Functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 347-357.
    2. Namuli, R. & Pillay, P. & Jaumard, B. & Laflamme, C.B., 2013. "Threshold herd size for commercial viability of biomass waste to energy conversion systems on rural farms," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 308-322.
    3. Willeghems, Gwen & Buysse, Jeroen, 2016. "Changing old habits: The case of feeding patterns in anaerobic digesters," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 212-221.
    4. Rojas-Downing, M. Melissa & Harrigan, Timothy & Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan, 2017. "Resource use and economic impacts in the transition from small confinement to pasture-based dairies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 157-171.
    5. DeVuyst, Eric A. & Pryor, Scott W. & Lardy, Greg & Eide, Wallace & Wiederholt, Ron, 2011. "Cattle, ethanol, and biogas: Does closing the loop make economic sense?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(8), pages 609-614, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Li, Xue & Mupondwa, Edmund, 2018. "Commercial feasibility of an integrated closed-loop ethanol-feedlot-biodigester system based on triticale feedstock in Canadian Prairies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 401-413.
    8. Benavidez, Justin & Thayer, Anastasia W., 2018. "Poo Power: Revisiting Energy Generation from Biogas on Dairies in Texas," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266636, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Robert C. Anderson & Alfons Weersink, 2014. "A Real Options Approach for the Investment Decisions of a Farm-Based Anaerobic Digester," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 62(1), pages 69-87, March.
    10. Megan Swindal & Gilbert Gillespie & Rick Welsh, 2010. "Community digester operations and dairy farmer perspectives," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(4), pages 461-474, December.
    11. Di Corato, Luca & Moretto, Michele, 2011. "Investing in biogas: Timing, technological choice and the value of flexibility from input mix," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1186-1193.
    12. Key, Nigel & Sneeringer, Stacy, 2012. "Carbon Emissions, Renewable Electricity, and Profits: Comparing Policies to Promote Anaerobic Digesters on Dairies," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 139-157, August.
    13. Ciliberti, Carlo & Jordaan, Sarah M. & Smith, Stephen V. & Spatari, Sabrina, 2016. "A life cycle perspective on land use and project economics of electricity from wind and anaerobic digestion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 52-63.
    14. Siegmeier, Torsten & Blumenstein, Benjamin & Möller, Detlev, 2015. "Farm biogas production in organic agriculture: System implications," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 196-209.
    15. T. Chen & M. Liu & Y. Takahashi & J.D. Mullen & G.C.W. Ames, 2016. "Carbon emission reduction and cost--benefit of methane digester systems on hog farms in China," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 948-966, June.
    16. White, Andrew J. & Kirk, Donald W. & Graydon, John W., 2011. "Analysis of small-scale biogas utilization systems on Ontario cattle farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1019-1025.
    17. Liebrand, Carolyn Betts & Ling, K. Charles, 2009. "Cooperative Approaches for Implementation of Dairy Manure Digesters," Research Reports 280105, United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development.
    18. Anderson, Robert C. & Hilborn, Don & Weersink, Alfons, 2013. "An economic and functional tool for assessing the financial feasibility of farm-based anaerobic digesters," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 85-92.
    19. Benavidez, Justin R. & Thayer, Anastasia W. & Anderson, David P., 2019. "Poo Power: Revisiting Biogas Generation Potential on Dairy Farms in Texas," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 682-700, November.
    20. Thompson, Ethan & Wang, Qingbin & Li, Minghao, 2013. "Anaerobic digester systems (ADS) for multiple dairy farms: A GIS analysis for optimal site selection," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 114-124.

    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:48:y:2012:i:c:p:790-798. 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.