IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v49y2015icp211-220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accounting for the utilisation of geothermal energy resources within the genuine progress indicator—A methodological review

Author

Listed:
  • Cook, David
  • Davidsdottir, Brynhildur
  • Petursson, Jón Geir

Abstract

The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) was initiated to mainly reflect strong rather than weak sustainability principles and embrace a ‘Fisherian’ understanding of income and capital. Prior to this review, neither existing calculation methodologies nor academic reviews of the GPI had considered the possibility that geothermal energy resources might not deliver sustainable yields. Although geothermal energy is renewable in the sense of the Earth’s almost ubiquitous capacity to store heat, the resources are frequently utilised at a rate that is unsustainable. Pressure recovery and fluid-heat recharge periods typically endure for several decades or more. Whenever geothermal resources are utilised unsustainably, this paper contends that the GPI should deduct monetary costs for the excess depletion. This approach would maintain the GPI’s methodological correctness as a measure of sustainable economic welfare in current time terms. Failure to do so is affirmative of the weak sustainability paradigm, inferring that overexploited energy resources can be either fully replaced or partially substituted when their yields begin to diminish. This paper sets out a new method for calculating GPI cost deductions for the unsustainable utilisation of geothermal energy resources. The outlined approach synthesises existing academic theory concerning geothermal production modes and levelised energy cost calculations.

Suggested Citation

  • Cook, David & Davidsdottir, Brynhildur & Petursson, Jón Geir, 2015. "Accounting for the utilisation of geothermal energy resources within the genuine progress indicator—A methodological review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 211-220.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:49:y:2015:i:c:p:211-220
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.171
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115004414
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.171?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. Greene, David L. & Hopson, Janet L. & Li, Jia, 2006. "Have we run out of oil yet? Oil peaking analysis from an optimist's perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 515-531, March.
    2. Menegaki, Angeliki N., 2011. "Growth and renewable energy in Europe: A random effect model with evidence for neutrality hypothesis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 257-263, March.
    3. Posner, Stephen M. & Costanza, Robert, 2011. "A summary of ISEW and GPI studies at multiple scales and new estimates for Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and the State of Maryland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1972-1980, September.
    4. Costanza, Robert & Erickson, Jon & Fligger, Karen & Adams, Alan & Adams, Christian & Altschuler, Ben & Balter, Stephanie & Fisher, Brendan & Hike, Jessica & Kelly, Joe, 2004. "Estimates of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Vermont, Chittenden County and Burlington, from 1950 to 2000," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 139-155, November.
    5. Dietz, Simon & Neumayer, Eric, 2007. "Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 617-626, March.
    6. Asheim, Geir B. & Hartwick, John M., 2011. "Anomalies in green national accounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2303-2307.
    7. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    8. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    9. R. M. Solow, 1974. "Intergenerational Equity and Exhaustible Resources," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(5), pages 29-45.
    10. Neumayer, Eric, 2004. "Sustainability and well-being indicators," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 30851, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Franco, Carol & Lawn, Philip & Talberth, John & Jackson, Tim & Aylmer, Camille, 2013. "Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 57-68.
    12. Eric Neumayer, 2013. "Weak versus Strong Sustainability," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14993.
    13. McKenzie,George W., 1983. "Measuring Economic Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521248624, October.
    14. Wright, Daniel G. & Dey, Prasanta K. & Brammer, John G., 2013. "A fuzzy levelised energy cost method for renewable energy technology assessment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 315-323.
    15. Tom Kuhlman & John Farrington, 2010. "What is Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(11), pages 1-13, November.
    16. Eric Neumayer, 1999. "The ISEW -- not an Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 77-101, September.
    17. Kruyt, Bert & van Vuuren, D.P. & de Vries, H.J.M. & Groenenberg, H., 2009. "Indicators for energy security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2166-2181, June.
    18. Hähnlein, Stefanie & Bayer, Peter & Ferguson, Grant & Blum, Philipp, 2013. "Sustainability and policy for the thermal use of shallow geothermal energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 914-925.
    19. Lawn, Philip A., 2003. "A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 105-118, February.
    20. Ekins, Paul & Simon, Sandrine & Deutsch, Lisa & Folke, Carl & De Groot, Rudolf, 2003. "A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 165-185, March.
    21. Brennan, Andrew John, 2008. "Theoretical foundations of sustainable economic welfare indicators -- ISEW and political economy of the disembedded system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-19, August.
    22. Manzano-Agugliaro, F. & Alcayde, A. & Montoya, F.G. & Zapata-Sierra, A. & Gil, C., 2013. "Scientific production of renewable energies worldwide: An overview," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 134-143.
    23. William D. Nordhaus, 1995. "How Should We Measure Sustainable Income?," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1101, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    24. Bartelmus, Peter, 2010. "Use and usefulness of sustainability economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2053-2055, 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. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2021. "An appraisal of interlinkages between macro-economic indicators of economic well-being and the sustainable development goals," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    2. David Cook & Nína Saviolidis & Brynhildur Davíðsdóttir & Lára Jóhannsdóttir & Snjólfur Ólafsson, 2019. "Synergies and Trade-Offs in the Sustainable Development Goals—The Implications of the Icelandic Tourism Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-23, August.
    3. Pan, Shu-Yuan & Gao, Mengyao & Shah, Kinjal J. & Zheng, Jianming & Pei, Si-Lu & Chiang, Pen-Chi, 2019. "Establishment of enhanced geothermal energy utilization plans: Barriers and strategies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 19-32.
    4. Melikoglu, Mehmet, 2017. "Geothermal energy in Turkey and around the World: A review of the literature and an analysis based on Turkey's Vision 2023 energy targets," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 485-492.
    5. Kevin McDonnell & Levente Molnár & Mary Harty & Fionnuala Murphy, 2020. "Feasibility Study of Carbon Dioxide Plume Geothermal Systems in Germany−Utilising Carbon Dioxide for Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-24, May.
    6. Cook, David & Malinauskaite, Laura & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2022. "Peering into the fire – An exploration of volcanic ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    7. David Cook & Brynhildur Davíðsdóttir & Ingunn Gunnarsdóttir, 2022. "A Conceptual Exploration of How the Pursuit of Sustainable Energy Development Is Implicit in the Genuine Progress Indicator," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, March.
    8. Moya, Diego & Aldás, Clay & Kaparaju, Prasad, 2018. "Geothermal energy: Power plant technology and direct heat applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 889-901.

    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. Brennan, Andrew John, 2013. "A critique of the perceived solid conceptual foundations of ISEW & GPI — Irving Fisher's cognisance of human-health capital in ‘net psychic income’," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 159-166.
    2. Fox, Mairi-Jane V. & Erickson, Jon D., 2020. "Design and meaning of the genuine progress indicator: A statistical analysis of the U.S. fifty-state model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    3. Van der Slycken, Jonas & Bleys, Brent, 2020. "A Conceptual Exploration and Critical Inquiry into the Theoretical Foundation(s) of Economic Welfare Measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Rugani, Benedetto & Marvuglia, Antonino & Pulselli, Federico Maria, 2018. "Predicting Sustainable Economic Welfare – Analysis and perspectives for Luxembourg based on energy policy scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 288-303.
    5. Dietz, Simon & Neumayer, Eric, 2007. "Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 617-626, March.
    6. Fox, Mairi-Jane V. & Erickson, Jon D., 2018. "Genuine Economic Progress in the United States: A Fifty State Study and Comparative Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 29-35.
    7. Talberth, John & Weisdorf, Michael, 2017. "Genuine Progress Indicator 2.0: Pilot Accounts for the US, Maryland, and City of Baltimore 2012–2014," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 1-11.
    8. Brent Bleys, 2012. "Beyond GDP: Classifying Alternative Measures for Progress," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 355-376, December.
    9. Ollivier, TO, 2009. "The usefulness of aggregate sustainability indicators for policy making: What do they say for Madagascar?," MPRA Paper 16607, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Jeffrey Wilson & Peter Tyedmers, 2013. "Rethinking What Counts. Perspectives on Wellbeing and Genuine Progress Indicator Metrics from a Canadian Viewpoint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Luke McGrath & Stephen Hynes & John McHale, 2020. "Linking Sustainable Development Assessment in Ireland and the European Union with Economic Theory," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 51(2), pages 327-355.
    12. Armiento, Mirko, 2018. "The Sustainable Welfare Index: Towards a Threshold Effect for Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 296-309.
    13. Beça, Pedro & Santos, Rui, 2010. "Measuring sustainable welfare: A new approach to the ISEW," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 810-819, February.
    14. Long, Xianling & Ji, Xi, 2019. "Economic Growth Quality, Environmental Sustainability, and Social Welfare in China - Provincial Assessment Based on Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 157-176.
    15. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Gorko, Nicole E. & Weisdorf, Michael A. & Carnes, Austin W. & Collins, Cathrine E. & Franco, Carol & Gehres, Lillian R. & Knobloch, Jenna M. & Matson, Gayle E. & , 2015. "Estimates of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Oregon from 1960–2010 and recommendations for a comprehensive shareholder's report," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 1-7.
    16. Adrian Boos, 2015. "Genuine Savings as an Indicator for “Weak” Sustainability: Critical Survey and Possible Ways forward in Practical Measuring," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-37, April.
    17. Philip Lawn, 2014. "Measuring sustainable economic welfare," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 23, pages 348-370, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Günseli BERIK, 2020. "Measuring what matters and guiding policy: An evaluation of the Genuine Progress Indicator," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 159(1), pages 71-94, March.
    19. O'Mahony, Tadhg & Escardó-Serra, Paula & Dufour, Javier, 2018. "Revisiting ISEW Valuation Approaches: The Case of Spain Including the Costs of Energy Depletion and of Climate Change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 292-303.
    20. Fleurbaey, Marc, 2015. "On sustainability and social welfare," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 34-53.

    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:rensus:v:49:y:2015:i:c:p:211-220. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.