IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkwp/1767r.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An economic assessment of biogas production and land use under the German renewable energy source act

Author

Listed:
  • Delzeit, Ruth
  • Britz, Wolfgang
  • Kreins, Peter

Abstract

The Renewable Energy Source Act (EEG) promotes German biogas production in order to substitute fossil fuels, protect the environment, and prevent climate change. As a consequence, green maize production has increased significantly over the last years, causing negative environmental effects on soil, water and biodiversity. In this paper we quantitatively analyse the EEG-reform in 2012 by applying the simulation tool ReSI-M (Regionalised Location Information System - Maize). Comparing the EEG 2012 with a former version of the legislation, results imply that the reform contributes to an expansion of biogas electricity generation compared to former versions, and thus to substitution of fossil fuels. Furthermore, given a restriction in the share of green maize input, its production is reduced and the crop-mix is diversified. However, since maize provides the highest energy output per area, total land requirement for biogas production increases. An alternative analysis shows that an EEG with tariffs independent from plant-types would provide the highest subsidy-efficiency, but slightly lower land efficiency compared to the EEG 2012.

Suggested Citation

  • Delzeit, Ruth & Britz, Wolfgang & Kreins, Peter, 2012. "An economic assessment of biogas production and land use under the German renewable energy source act," Kiel Working Papers 1767 [rev.], Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkwp:1767r
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/130546/1/857100904.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruth Delzeit & Karin Holm-Müller & Wolfgang Britz, 2012. "Ökonomische Bewertung des Erneuerbare Energien Gesetzes zur Förderung von Biogas," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 13(3), pages 251-265, August.
    2. Richard E. Howitt, 1995. "Positive Mathematical Programming," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(2), pages 329-342.
    3. Delzeit, Ruth & Britz, Wolfgang & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2011. "Modelling regional input markets with numerous processing plants: The case of green maize for biogas production in Germany," Discussion Papers 162892, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    4. Gomann, Horst & Kreins, Peter & Breuer, Thomas, 2007. "Deutschland – Energie-Corn-Belt Europas?," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 56(5/6).
    5. Gomann, Horst & Kreins, Peter & Breuer, Thomas, 2007. "Deutschland – Energie-Corn-Belt Europas?," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 56(05-06), pages 1-9.
    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. Oniszk-Popławska, Anna & Matyka, Mariusz & Ryńska, Elżbieta Dagny, 2014. "Evaluation of a long-term potential for the development of agricultural biogas plants: A case study for the Lubelskie Province, Poland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 329-349.
    2. Britz, Wolfgang & Delzeit, Ruth, 2013. "The impact of German biogas production on European and global agricultural markets, land use and the environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1268-1275.
    3. Venus, Terese E. & Strauss, Felix & Venus, Thomas J. & Sauer, Johannes, 2021. "Understanding stakeholder preferences for future biogas development in Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Jacobsen, Brian H. & Laugesen, Frederik M. & Dubgaard, Alex, 2014. "The economics of biogas in Denmark: a farm and socioeconomic perspective," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 3(3), pages 1-10.

    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. Kreins, P. & Heidecke, C. & Gömann, H. & Hirt, U. & Wendland, F., 2011. "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der wissenschaftlichen Politikanalyse zur Umsetzung der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie – Anwendung eines hydro-ökonomischen Modellverbundes für das Weser Einzugsgebiet," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 46, March.
    2. Britz, Wolfgang & van Ittersum, Martin K. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M. & Heckelei, Thomas, 2012. "Tools for Integrated Assessment in Agriculture. State of the Art and Challenges," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(2), pages 1-26, August.
    3. Ruth Delzeit & Karin Holm-Müller & Wolfgang Britz, 2012. "Ökonomische Bewertung des Erneuerbare Energien Gesetzes zur Förderung von Biogas," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 13(3), pages 251-265, August.
    4. Gömann, H. & Kreins, P. & Breuer, T., 2008. "Einfluss steigender Weltagrarpreise auf die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit des Energiemaisanbaus in Deutschland," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 43, March.
    5. Jochen Thiering & Enno Bahrs, 2008. "Optionen für eine überregional nachhaltige Standortevaluierung für die Biogasproduktion und -einspeisung," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 1(1), pages 21-38.
    6. Raupach, Katharina & Marggraf, Rainer, 2009. "Verbraucherschutz vor dem Schimmelpilzgift Deoxynivalenol in Getreideprodukten Aktuelle Situation und Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 187433, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    7. Britz, Wolfgang & Delzeit, Ruth, 2013. "The impact of German biogas production on European and global agricultural markets, land use and the environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1268-1275.
    8. Cao, Zhaodan & Zhu, Tingju & Cai, Ximing, 2023. "Hydro-agro-economic optimization for irrigated farming in an arid region: The Hetao Irrigation District, Inner Mongolia," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    9. Kooten, G. Cornelis van, 2013. "Modeling Forest Trade in Logs and Lumber: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis," Working Papers 149182, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    10. Scheierling, Susanne M. & Treguer, David O. & Booker, James F. & Decker, Elisabeth, 2014. "How to assess agricultural water productivity ? looking for water in the agricultural productivity and efficiency literature," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6982, The World Bank.
    11. Britz, Wolfgang & Kuhn, Arnim, 2011. "Can Hydro-economic River Basis Models Simulate Water Shadow Prices Under Asymmetric Access?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114272, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Masahiko Gemma & Yacov Tsur, 2007. "The Stabilization Value of Groundwater and Conjunctive Water Management under Uncertainty ," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 540-548.
    13. Key, Nigel D. & Kaplan, Jonathan D., 2007. "Multiple Environmental Externalities and Manure Management Policy," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-20, April.
    14. Kamel Louhichi & Aymeric Ricome & Sergio Gomez y Paloma, 2022. "Impacts of agricultural taxation in Sub‐Saharan Africa: Insights from agricultural produce cess in Tanzania," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(5), pages 671-686, September.
    15. Carpentier, Alain & Letort, Elodie, 2009. "Modeling acreage decisions within the multinomial Logit framework," Working Papers 211011, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    16. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Riesgo, Laura, 2016. "Modeling at farm level: Positive Multi-Attribute Utility Programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 17-27.
    17. Janssen, Sander & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2007. "Assessing farm innovations and responses to policies: A review of bio-economic farm models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 622-636, June.
    18. Msangi, Siwa & Howitt, Richard E., 2006. "Estimating Disaggregate Production Functions: An Application to Northern Mexico," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21080, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Patrick Withey & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2011. "The Effect of Climate Change on Land Use and Wetlands Conservation in Western Canada: An Application of Positive Mathematical Programming," Working Papers 2011-04, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    20. Britz, Wolfgang & Linda, Arata, "undated". "How Important Are Crop Shares In Managing Risk For Specialized Arable Farms? A Panel Estimation Of A Programming Model For Three European Regions," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244801, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    bioenergy; biogas; land use; policy analysis; simulation model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:ifwkwp:1767r. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iwkiede.html .

    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.