• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• 11. Sustainability close
• 2. Zero hunger close
• Research Papers in Economics 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.

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

Biomass plays an important role in the world primary energy supplies, currently providing ∼14% of the world's primary energy needs and being the fourth largest contributor following coal, oil and natural gas. Over the past decade, domestic biomass heating has received more governmental and public supports than ever before in many developed countries, such as the UK. Although biomass combustion releases some combustion pollutants, biomass is renewable and produces little net CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere. Owing to the low sulphur and low nitrogen contents of many biomass materials, substituting biomass for fossil fuels, particularly coal, can reduce SO x and NO x emissions. This study investigated flue gas emissions, particularly carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, of a domestic biomass boiler under various operating conditions. The biomass boiler used in this study satisfies the current EU regulation (EN 303-05) on emissions of domestic biomass boilers. Emissions of the boiler had been measured not only under normal combustion conditions, but also under 'idle' combustion conditions when the boiler was not in but was ready for full operation. The experimental results are analysed and presented in this paper. Copyright The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org, Oxford University Press.

Points out that sustainability as such does not provide a clearcut guide to policy. First one has to decide what is to be sustained. If this is agreed, it must be in an operational from. However, difficulties may still emerge since opinions may differ about how to achieve. This is illustrated by differences in the views of economists about how sustainable development is to be achieved. Orthodox economists stress the importance of the accumulation of man-made capital to achieve this end whereas neo-Malthusians stress the importance of conserving natural resource and environmental capital. Both take an anthropocentric point of view. For political reasons the neo-Malthusian has had little support but it may eventually turn out to be correct. Economics is concerned with reducing economic scarcity and economists have traditionally suggested four main ways of doing this of which economic growth is one. However, neo-Malthusian economists believe that this may not be a sustainable strategy – it may result in future poverty. It should be noted that economic systems are embedded in social and natural systems and depend on these. Economic sustainability depends on the sustainability of these other systems. So from this point of view, it is just one of several bottom lines. Values must be considered in relation to sustainability. Economics is completely anthropocentric in its approach. Therefore, economic approaches to conservation and sustainability can be at odds with the values of deep ecologists or those willing to accord rights to other sentient beings or ecosystems independent of human wishes, or those who want to make use of value judgments other than those based on the measuring rod of money. Consequently economics evaluation is sometimes ineffective in resolving social conflict, including conflict about what should be sustained. As a rule economics alone should not be the final arbiter of social decisions. It is a part (often an important part) of the social evaluation process but not the bottom line, or just one of many lines.

Biogas production is a clean renewable energy source that can improve lives in developing countries. However, winter temperatures in some areas are too low to enable enough biogas production in small unheated digesters to meet the energy requirements of households. Low-cost, high yield reactors adapted to the local climate are needed in those situations. A decision-support model was developed to assist in the design of biogas reactors capable of meeting households’ year-round energy needs. Monthly biogas production relative to household energy needs was calculated for the scenario of suburban Hanoi, Vietnam. Calculations included pig number, slurry (manure water mixture) dilution, retention time and biogas/solar heating. Although using biogas to heat the digester increased biogas production, it did not lead to an energy surplus, particularly with the 1:9 slurry dilution rate commonly used on pig farms. However, at a 1:3 slurry dilution, the use of solar heating to provide 90% and biogas 10% of the heat required to heat the digester to 35 °C improved the biogas production by 50% compared to psychrophilic production. The energy needs of an average five-person family throughout the year required 17 fattening pigs. This model can establish the best solution for producing sufficient energy throughout the year.

Activities involving land use, land-use change,forestry, and agriculture (LUCF) can help reducegreenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphereby increasing biotic carbon storage, by decreasing GHGemissions, and by producing biomass as a substitutefor fossil fuels. Potential activities includereducing rates of deforestation, increasing landdevoted to forest plantations, regenerating secondaryforest, agroforestry, improving the management offorests and agricultural areas; and producing energycrops.Policymakers debating the inclusion of a variety ofLUCF activities in the Clean Development Mechanism(CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol need to consider themagnitude of the carbon contribution these activitiescould make. Existing estimates of the cumulative GHGoffset potential of LUCF activities often take aglobal or regional approach. In contrast, land-usedecisions are usually made at the local level anddepend on many factors including productive capacityof the land, financial considerations of thelandowner, and environmental concerns. Estimates ofGHG offset potential made at a local, or at mostcountry, level that incorporate these factors may belower, as well as more useful for policy analyses,than global or large regional estimates. Whilecountry-level estimates exist for forestry activities,similar estimates utilizing local information need tobe generated for agricultural activities and biofuels,as well as for the cumulative potential of all LUCFactivities in a particular location.

Conventional wisdom suggests that energy efficiency (EE) policies are beneficial because they induce investments that pay for themselves and lead to emissions reductions. However, this belief is primarily based on projections from engineering models. This paper reports on the results of an experimental evaluation of the nation’s largest residential EE program conducted on a sample of more than 30,000 households. The findings suggest that the upfront investment costs are about twice the actual energy savings. Further, the model-projected savings are roughly 2.5 times the actual savings. While this might be attributed to the “rebound” effect – when demand for energy end uses increases as a result of greater efficiency – the paper fails to find evidence of significantly higher indoor temperatures at weatherized homes. Even when accounting for the broader societal benefits of energy efficiency investments, the costs still substantially outweigh the benefits; the average rate of return is approximately -9.5% annually.

This paper conveniently skips any controversy associated with the science of climate change. On the assumption that greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change that is detrimental to humanity, the paper focuses on some economic dimensions of the issue which seem to be poorly understood by Australian media commentators, policy analysts, interest groups and the political parties. Using a neoclassical welfare economics framework the paper explores the costs and benefits of greenhouse gas abatement with reference to the findings of the Stern Report, the setting of greenhouse gas targets by Australian political parties, the danger of the government “picking winners” and the emerging carbon theory of value. The paper concludes with a brief review of the relative merits of a carbon tax and a cap and trade approach. Key Words: This paper conveniently skips any controversy associated with the science of climate change. On the assumption that greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change that is detrimental to humanity, the paper focuses on some economic dimensions of the issue which seem to be poorly understood by Australian media commentators, policy analysts, interest groups and the political parties. Using a neoclassical welfare economics framework the paper explores the costs and benefits of greenhouse gas abatement with reference to the findings of the Stern Report, the setting of greenhouse gas targets by Australian political parties, the danger of the government “picking winners” and the emerging carbon theory of value. The paper concludes with a brief review of the relative merits of a carbon tax and a cap and trade approach.