IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i22p7544-d1278739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental External Production Costs of Extracts Derived from Poplar-Containing Bioactive Substances

Author

Listed:
  • Ewelina Olba-Zięty

    (Department of Genetics, Plant Breeding and Bioresource Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Centre for Bioeconomy and Renewable Energies, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-724 Olsztyn, Poland)

  • Michał Krzyżaniak

    (Department of Genetics, Plant Breeding and Bioresource Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Centre for Bioeconomy and Renewable Energies, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-724 Olsztyn, Poland)

  • Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski

    (Department of Genetics, Plant Breeding and Bioresource Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Centre for Bioeconomy and Renewable Energies, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-724 Olsztyn, Poland)

Abstract

The bioeconomy needs new, economically feasible products obtained from biological raw materials via sustainable processes having the smallest possible impact on the environment. The objectives of our study have been: (i) to make an evaluation of the external costs of the production of a poplar extract containing bioactive substances by supercritical extraction; (ii) to make a comparison of the internal and external costs of extract production; (iii) to determine the total life cycle costs (LCCs) of the extract and the break-even prices (BEPs) in two business models. In the first business model (BM I), the only commercial product was the extract, while pellets were used for their own energy purposes. In the second business model (BM II), both the extract and pellets were marketable products. Out of the two analyzed business models, lower external costs and, consequently, lower total costs were achieved in BM I (LCC €259 kg −1 ) than in BM II (LCC €267 kg −1 ). However, the profitability analysis showed that BM II was more profitable (BEP €313 kg −1 ) than BM I (BEP €359 kg −1 ). The inclusion of the external costs of poplar extract production by supercritical extraction has a significant impact on increasing the production profitability threshold. An analysis of a situation where electricity was replaced with the EU mix (the European Union mix) generated with a higher share of RES (renewable energy sources) showed that the externalities were lowered. A substantial decrease in the external costs at the supercritical extraction stage was reflected in the lower values of the total cost of extract production, LCC, and BEP, hence, attesting to less damage to the natural environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Ewelina Olba-Zięty & Michał Krzyżaniak & Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski, 2023. "Environmental External Production Costs of Extracts Derived from Poplar-Containing Bioactive Substances," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-25, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:22:p:7544-:d:1278739
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/22/7544/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/22/7544/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Acuña, Eduardo & Rubilar, Rafael & Cancino, Jorge & Albaugh, Timothy J. & Maier, Chris A., 2018. "Economic assessment of Eucalyptus globulus short rotation energy crops under contrasting silvicultural intensities on marginal agricultural land," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 329-337.
    2. Weidema, Bo Pedersen, 2009. "Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1591-1598, April.
    3. Nicholas Stern, 2008. "The Economics of Climate Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 1-37, May.
    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. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    2. Anni Orola & Anna Härri & Jarkko Levänen & Ville Uusitalo & Stig Irving Olsen, 2022. "Assessing WELBY Social Life Cycle Assessment Approach through Cobalt Mining Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-26, September.
    3. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    4. Melissa Dell & Benjamin F. Jones & Benjamin A. Olken, 2014. "What Do We Learn from the Weather? The New Climate-Economy Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(3), pages 740-798, September.
    5. Pogany, Peter, 2013. "Thermodynamic Isolation and the New World Order," MPRA Paper 49924, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Fischbacher, Urs & Schudy, Simeon & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2021. "Heterogeneous preferences and investments in energy saving measures," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    7. Pindyck, Robert S., 2019. "The social cost of carbon revisited," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 140-160.
    8. Hongbo Duan & Gupeng Zhang & Shouyang Wang & Ying Fan, 2018. "Balancing China’s climate damage risk against emission control costs," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 387-403, March.
    9. Luca Gerotto & Paolo Pellizzari, 2021. "A replication of Pindyck’s willingness to pay: on the efforts required to obtain results," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(5), pages 1-25, May.
    10. Mavisakalyan, Astghik & Tarverdi, Yashar, 2019. "Gender and climate change: Do female parliamentarians make difference?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 151-164.
    11. Patrycja Klusak & Matthew Agarwala & Matt Burke & Moritz Kraemer & Kamiar Mohaddes, 2023. "Rising Temperatures, Falling Ratings: The Effect of Climate Change on Sovereign Creditworthiness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(12), pages 7468-7491, December.
    12. Philippe Aghion & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & David Hémous & Ralf Martin & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency, and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 1-51.
    13. Timothy Johnson, 2015. "Reciprocity as a Foundation of Financial Economics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 43-67, September.
    14. Kalkuhl, Matthias & Wenz, Leonie, 2020. "The impact of climate conditions on economic production. Evidence from a global panel of regions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    15. Winters, John V. & Cai, Zhengyu & Maguire, Karen & Sengupta, Shruti, 2019. "Do Workers Benefit from Resource Booms in Their Home State? Evidence from the Fracking Era," GLO Discussion Paper Series 400, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    16. Johansson, R. & Meyer, S. & Whistance, J. & Thompson, W. & Debnath, D., 2020. "Greenhouse gas emission reduction and cost from the United States biofuels mandate," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    17. Jinhan Yu & Licheng Sun, 2022. "Supply Chain Emission Reduction Decisions, Considering Overconfidence under Conditions of Carbon Trading Price Volatility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-18, November.
    18. Runst, Petrik & Höhle, David, 2022. "The German eco tax and its impact on CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    19. Caleb A. Cox & Brock Stoddard, 2021. "Common-Value Public Goods and Informational Social Dilemmas," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 343-369, May.
    20. Pindyck, Robert S., 2012. "Uncertain outcomes and climate change policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 289-303.

    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:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:22:p:7544-:d:1278739. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.