• Energy Research
• US close
• Energy Policy close

This paper investigates how risks are anticipated in national bioenergy policies and in which way related expectations that harms can be prevented or mitigated have actually been met. The paper draws on the national biofuel policies of ten countries and the EU, selected to represent a diverse sample of regions, producers and consumers, and pioneers and latecomers. It proceeds in two steps: firstly, it identifies three risk categories most frequently mentioned across the investigated national policies. Secondly, it conducts a systematic review of available empirical research about biofuels’ effects in these risk categories. Findings are discussed regarding the empirical conditions under which related expectations to do no harm have materialized or failed; and concerning the challenges of risks perception and management in actual policies. We observe issues of crop selection and inadequate sectoral governance of biofuels, but also challenges of large-scale modes of intensive production. Effective risk mitigation was often the result of risk adverse choices by contract farmers engaged in biofuels production. National policy documents have insufficiently conceptualized ‘do no harm’ concepts and strategies in place to address these performance issues; while remaining silent on the particular risk governance and accountability framework that keeps track of actual developments, commitments and responsibilities.

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 710 kW 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 (NO x ) removal had a minimal effect on economic sustainability.

When public policies with impacts far into the future are being debated, the question inevitably is raised whether cost-benefit analysis which discounts future costs and benefits is not biased against future generations and whether, if such discounting is appropriate at all, a lower rate should be used to avoid such bias. The debate on global climate change is no exception. This paper sketches and analyses the welfare foundations of cost-benefit analysis and from this perspective analyses the role of cost-benefit analysis in the climate policy debate, particularly with reference to intergenerational effects. The paper concludes that the cost-benefit criterion cannot provide a definitive basis for deciding whether we should commit to a longer-term programme to moderate climate change; the issues of intergenerational equity are not that global climate change will significantly lower the GNP of future generations, but relate to the possibility of science fiction-like changes in the planet that will produce catastrophic effects in the future; and the typical way in which the cost-benefit problem is posed obscures the basic choices that we should be evaluating.

Abstract This paper focuses on the empirical basis for skepticism about the effectiveness of the market mechanism in promoting cost-effective energy-efficiency improvements. We present a framework for evaluating engineering economic evidence on the diffusion of energy-efficiency improvements, and then present a series of examples within this framework that provide evidence for the existence of market imperfections related to energy efficiency. We conclude with a challenge to economists, policy analysts, and technologists to take this empirical evidence seriously and sponsor further collaborative research in this area.

There is little agreement on what policies are most effective in promoting renewable energy (RE) technologies or even in what it means for a policy to be ‘effective.’ As a result, RE policy-setting can decay into a chaotic process of seeking only to satisfy stakeholders, while losing sight of the larger goals that motivated the original interest in renewables. This paper provides an explicit framework that clarifies the relationship between goals, programs, and technologies. Specifically, this paper argues that there is an explicit and simple linear relationship between these three concepts, and shows how a specific policy goal is best accomplished by distinct programs and technologies. This framework can assist decision-makers by clarifying that, if they choose a specific goal, then there are a specific set of corresponding programs and technologies that will best meet that goal. This framework is applied to Ireland, which is currently considering policy change to encourage greater implementation of renewables.

Abstract This paper presents a critical view of Florida's photovoltaic (PV) subsidy system and proposes an econometric model of PV system installation and generation costs. Using information on currently installed systems, average installation cost relations for residential and commercial systems are estimated and cost-efficient scales of installation panel wattage are identified. Productive efficiency in annual generating capacity is also examined under flexible panel efficiency assumptions. We identify potential gains in efficiency and suggest changes in subsidy system constraints, providing important guidance for the implementation of future incentive programs. Specifically, we find that the subsidy system discouraged residential applicants from installing at the cost-efficient scale but over-incentivized commercial applicants, resulting in inefficiently sized installations.

Abstract Substituting energy with capital (SEC) in economic productions has become a common practice both for business owners and policy-makers to improve their energy and environmental efficiency. However, seldom previous studies on energy efficiency and/or environmental performance evaluation took this role into account. This paper aims to shed some light on the effects of SEC on China's aggregated energy and environmental efficiency (AEEE) within a parametric stochastic frontier analysis framework. Moreover, influencing factors of regional efficiency score are also discussed using a pooled regression model. The results indicate that SEC poses significant effects on improving China's AEEE, and this impact appears obvious regional variation that regions with lower efficiency scores hold more extensive potential to improve their AEEE by means of SEC. Furthermore, upgrading industrial structure and decreasing the proportion of coal in energy consumption make great sense to improve China's AEEE.

Abstract An essential issue in future climate negotiations is how to bring developing countries on board. This paper proposes and applies the two-level interest-based model to analyze the factors that affect the likely stances of the “Plus Five” countries (Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa) on international climate negotiations. This study finds mitigation capability to be a crucial factor which consists of at least such sub-factors as per capita income, energy endowment, and economic structure, while ecological vulnerability does not seem to play an important role which includes reductions in agricultural outputs, sea-level rise, climate-related natural disasters, and others. The paper proposes six options in an ascending order of stringency that the Plus Five are likely to adopt. The paper suggests that the “Basic Four” (the Plus Five excluding Mexico), particularly China and India, are less likely to adopt a voluntary commitment to an emissions cap on the national economy in the near future than Mexico, which has the highest mitigation capability among all five. The Basic Four are likely to adopt more stringent climate polices with increasing mitigation capabilities, suggesting the importance of effective international financial and technology transfer mechanisms and further tighten emission reduction targets from developed countries.