• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• 11. Sustainability close
• US close
• AU close
• IN close

This article examines land-use, market and welfare implications of lignocellulosic bioethanol production in Hawaii to satisfy 10% and 20% of the State's gasoline demand in line with the State's ethanol blending mandate and Alternative Fuels Standard (AFS). A static computable general equilibrium (CGE) model is used to evaluate four alternative support mechanisms for bioethanol. Namely: (i) a federal blending tax credit, (ii) a long-term purchase contract, (iii) a state production subsidy financed by a lump-sum tax and (iv) a state production subsidy financed by an ad valorem gasoline tax. We find that because Hawaii-produced bioethanol is relatively costly, all scenarios are welfare reducing for Hawaii residents: estimated between -0.14% and -0.32%. Unsurprisingly, Hawaii.s economy and its residents fair best under the federal blending tax credit scenario, with a positive impact to gross state product of $49 million. Otherwise, impacts to gross state product are negative (up to -$63 million). We additionally find that Hawaii-based bioethanol is not likely to offer substantial greenhouse gas emissions savings in comparison to imported biofuel, and as such the policy cost per tonne of emissions displaced ranges between $130 to $2,100/tonne of CO2e. The policies serve to increase the value of agricultural lands, where we estimate that the value of pasture land could increase as much as 150% in the 20% AFS scenario.

This article examines land-use, market and welfare implications of lignocellulosic bioethanol production in Hawaii to satisfy 10% and 20% of the State's gasoline demand in line with the State's ethanol blending mandate and Alternative Fuels Standard (AFS). A static computable general equilibrium (CGE) model is used to evaluate four alternative support mechanisms for bioethanol. Namely: (i) a federal blending tax credit, (ii) a long-term purchase contract, (iii) a state production subsidy financed by a lump-sum tax and (iv) a state production subsidy financed by an ad valorem gasoline tax. We find that because Hawaii-produced bioethanol is relatively costly, all scenarios are welfare reducing for Hawaii residents: estimated between -0.14% and -0.32%. Unsurprisingly, Hawaii.s economy and its residents fair best under the federal blending tax credit scenario, with a positive impact to gross state product of $49 million. Otherwise, impacts to gross state product are negative (up to -$63 million). We additionally find that Hawaii-based bioethanol is not likely to offer substantial greenhouse gas emissions savings in comparison to imported biofuel, and as such the policy cost per tonne of emissions displaced ranges between $130 to $2,100/tonne of CO2e. The policies serve to increase the value of agricultural lands, where we estimate that the value of pasture land could increase as much as 150% in the 20% AFS scenario.

Abstract The main hindrances to the large-scale development of renewable-energy projects are the lack of bankability and the inability to align investments and investors with suitable financial instruments or robust policy measures. To illustrate a bankable project, this paper presents a research-based case study on the installation of solar photovoltaic panels on the rooftops of 195 trains of the Indian Railways. Detailed information on the annual running hours, exposure to sunlight, efficiency of solar photovoltaic generation and electrical power demands of each rail coach is considered to conduct a quantitative measure of the tentative amount of fossil fuel savings. The purpose is to provide insight into the types of renewable-energy projects that can be highly attractive to financial institutions and promoters due to their lucrative internal return on investment. As seen in this case study, there are annual savings in diesel of 12 323 088 litres and a CO2 reduction of 32 755 tonnes, with return on investment of 1.3 years. Furthermore, this study conducts a comprehensive analysis of the limitations of existing renewable-energy project financing mechanisms in India. Subsequently, three policy measures are recommended to develop a robust financial mechanism that can effectively meet the needs of investors and investors. These measures include increasing equity injection through a buy-and-hold strategy, providing direct tax benefits to promoters and financing through real-estate investment trusts. The findings are highly relevant to address the challenges associated with bridging the financial gap between access to finance and capital investment in the renewable-energy sector, especially for Asian countries.

Abstract The main hindrances to the large-scale development of renewable-energy projects are the lack of bankability and the inability to align investments and investors with suitable financial instruments or robust policy measures. To illustrate a bankable project, this paper presents a research-based case study on the installation of solar photovoltaic panels on the rooftops of 195 trains of the Indian Railways. Detailed information on the annual running hours, exposure to sunlight, efficiency of solar photovoltaic generation and electrical power demands of each rail coach is considered to conduct a quantitative measure of the tentative amount of fossil fuel savings. The purpose is to provide insight into the types of renewable-energy projects that can be highly attractive to financial institutions and promoters due to their lucrative internal return on investment. As seen in this case study, there are annual savings in diesel of 12 323 088 litres and a CO2 reduction of 32 755 tonnes, with return on investment of 1.3 years. Furthermore, this study conducts a comprehensive analysis of the limitations of existing renewable-energy project financing mechanisms in India. Subsequently, three policy measures are recommended to develop a robust financial mechanism that can effectively meet the needs of investors and investors. These measures include increasing equity injection through a buy-and-hold strategy, providing direct tax benefits to promoters and financing through real-estate investment trusts. The findings are highly relevant to address the challenges associated with bridging the financial gap between access to finance and capital investment in the renewable-energy sector, especially for Asian countries.

AbstractClimate change poses new and unique challenges that threaten lives and livelihoods. Given the increasing risks and looming uncertainty of climate change, increasing attention has been directed towards adaptation, or the strategies that enable humanity to persist and thrive through climate change the best it can. Though climate change is a global problem often discussed at the national scale, urban areas are increasingly seen as having a distinct role, and distinctive motivation and capacity, for adaptation. The 12 articles in this special issue explore ways of understanding and addressing climate change impacts on urban areas. Together they reveal young but rapidly growing scholarship on how to measure, and then overcome, challenges of climate change. Two key themes emerge in this issue: 1) that we must identify and then overcome current barriers to urban adaptation and 2) frameworks/metrics are necessary to identify and track adaptation progress in urban settings. Both of these themes point to the power of indicators and other quantitative information to inform priorities and illuminate the pathway forward for adaptation. As climate change is an entirely new challenge, careful measurement that enables investment by private and public parties is necessary to provide efficient outcomes that benefit the greatest number of people.

AbstractClimate change poses new and unique challenges that threaten lives and livelihoods. Given the increasing risks and looming uncertainty of climate change, increasing attention has been directed towards adaptation, or the strategies that enable humanity to persist and thrive through climate change the best it can. Though climate change is a global problem often discussed at the national scale, urban areas are increasingly seen as having a distinct role, and distinctive motivation and capacity, for adaptation. The 12 articles in this special issue explore ways of understanding and addressing climate change impacts on urban areas. Together they reveal young but rapidly growing scholarship on how to measure, and then overcome, challenges of climate change. Two key themes emerge in this issue: 1) that we must identify and then overcome current barriers to urban adaptation and 2) frameworks/metrics are necessary to identify and track adaptation progress in urban settings. Both of these themes point to the power of indicators and other quantitative information to inform priorities and illuminate the pathway forward for adaptation. As climate change is an entirely new challenge, careful measurement that enables investment by private and public parties is necessary to provide efficient outcomes that benefit the greatest number of people.

AbstractBioenergy projects can lead to direct and indirect land use change (LUC), which can substantially affect greenhouse gas balances with both beneficial and adverse outcomes for bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation. The causes behind LUC are multiple, complex, interlinked, and change over time. This makes quantification uncertain and sensitive to many factors that can develop in different directions—including land use productivity, trade patterns, prices and elasticities, and use of by‐products associated with biofuels production. Quantifications reported so far vary substantially and do not support the ranking of bioenergy options with regard to LUC and associated emissions. There are however several options for mitigating these emissions, which can be implemented despite the uncertainties. Long‐rotation forest management is associated with carbon emissions and sequestration that are not in temporal balance with each other and this leads to mitigation trade‐offs between biomass extraction for energy use and the alternative to leave the biomass in the forest. Bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation needs to reflect a balance between near‐term targets and the long‐term objective to hold the increase in global temperature below 2°C (Copenhagen Accord). Although emissions from LUC can be significant in some circumstances, the reality of such emissions is not sufficient reason to exclude bioenergy from the list of worthwhile technologies for climate change mitigation. Policy measures to minimize the negative impacts of LUC should be based on a holistic perspective recognizing the multiple drivers and effects of LUC.This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Economics and Policy Bioenergy > Climate and Environment

AbstractBioenergy projects can lead to direct and indirect land use change (LUC), which can substantially affect greenhouse gas balances with both beneficial and adverse outcomes for bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation. The causes behind LUC are multiple, complex, interlinked, and change over time. This makes quantification uncertain and sensitive to many factors that can develop in different directions—including land use productivity, trade patterns, prices and elasticities, and use of by‐products associated with biofuels production. Quantifications reported so far vary substantially and do not support the ranking of bioenergy options with regard to LUC and associated emissions. There are however several options for mitigating these emissions, which can be implemented despite the uncertainties. Long‐rotation forest management is associated with carbon emissions and sequestration that are not in temporal balance with each other and this leads to mitigation trade‐offs between biomass extraction for energy use and the alternative to leave the biomass in the forest. Bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation needs to reflect a balance between near‐term targets and the long‐term objective to hold the increase in global temperature below 2°C (Copenhagen Accord). Although emissions from LUC can be significant in some circumstances, the reality of such emissions is not sufficient reason to exclude bioenergy from the list of worthwhile technologies for climate change mitigation. Policy measures to minimize the negative impacts of LUC should be based on a holistic perspective recognizing the multiple drivers and effects of LUC.This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Economics and Policy Bioenergy > Climate and Environment