Nonmarket cobenefits and economic feasibility of on-farm biogas energy production

被引:73
|
作者
Yiridoe, Emmanuel K. [1 ]
Gordon, Robert [2 ]
Brown, Bettina B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Nova Scotia Agr Coll, Agr & Resource Econ Res Grp, Dept Business & Social Sci, Truro, NS B2N 5E3, Canada
[2] Univ Guelph, OAC Deans Off, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
关键词
Biogas energy; Investment decisions; Nonpecuniary cobenefits; ANAEROBIC-DIGESTION; SWINE; SLURRY; ODOR;
D O I
10.1016/j.enpol.2008.11.018
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Standard analysis of the economic feasibility of on-farm biogas energy production tend to emphasize primarily on direct financial benefits to farmers, and abstracts from the nonmarket cobenefits associated with anaerobic digestion of livestock manure and other biomass feedstock. This shortcoming of the standard feasibility analysis raises a fundamental question: How is the economic feasibility of on-farm anaerobic biogas energy production affected by the associated nonpecuniary cobenefits? Incorporating key nonmarket cobenefits from biogas energy production extends the standard economic feasibility analysis, and provides important insights. When nonmarket cobenefits were excluded, on-farm biogas energy production was generally not financially feasible for the dairy and swine farm size ranges studied (except for 600- and 800-sow farms). Overall, results of the financial feasibility analysis did not change compared to a base scenario (without nonmarket cobenefits) when an estimated annual total nonmarket cobenefits of CND$5000 was incorporated into the analysis, for both dairy and swine farms. Biogas energy production was generally financially viable for small-size dairy (i.e., 50-cow) and swine.(i.e.. 200-sow) farms when the nonmarket cobenefits were valued at CND$15,000 (or higher). Improvements in financial feasibility were more dramatic for dairy than for swine farms. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1170 / 1179
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Finding disturbances in on-farm biogas production
    Antonio, Pereira-Querol Marco
    Laura, Seppanen
    [J]. WORK-A JOURNAL OF PREVENTION ASSESSMENT & REHABILITATION, 2012, 41 : 81 - 88
  • [2] On-farm biogas technology
    不详
    [J]. BIOCYCLE, 1997, 38 (01) : 78 - 78
  • [3] ECONOMIC-FEASIBILITY OF ON-FARM RESERVOIRS FOR IRRIGATION WATER
    SHULSTAD, RN
    HARPER, JK
    PERALTA, RC
    [J]. ARKANSAS FARM RESEARCH, 1985, 34 (04): : 7 - 7
  • [4] Exploring the developmental possibilities of environmental activities: On-farm biogas production
    Pereira-Querol, Marco Antonio
    Seppanen, Laura
    Virkkunen, Jaakko
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2014, 37 : 134 - 141
  • [5] On-farm manure-to-energy production
    Ericckson, Britt E.
    [J]. Environmental Science and Technology, 2002, 36 (13):
  • [6] On-farm manure-to-energy production
    Erickson, BE
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2002, 36 (13) : 277A - 278A
  • [7] UTILIZATION OF BIOGAS FOR FARM PRODUCTION ENERGY
    WILLIAMS, DW
    MCCARTY, TR
    MORRIS, GR
    GUNKEL, WW
    PRICE, DR
    [J]. TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE, 1976, 19 (06): : 1034 - &
  • [8] Economic Analysis of Swine Farm Management for the Enhancement of Biogas Production and Energy Efficiency
    Putmai, N.
    Jarunglumlert, T.
    Prommuak, C.
    Pavasant, P.
    Flood, A. E.
    [J]. WASTE AND BIOMASS VALORIZATION, 2020, 11 (10) : 5635 - 5645
  • [9] Economic Analysis of Swine Farm Management for the Enhancement of Biogas Production and Energy Efficiency
    N. Putmai
    T. Jarunglumlert
    C. Prommuak
    P. Pavasant
    A. E. Flood
    [J]. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 2020, 11 : 5635 - 5645
  • [10] Regional drivers of on-farm energy production in Bavaria
    Schaffer, Axel
    Duevelmeyer, Claudia
    [J]. ENERGY POLICY, 2016, 95 : 361 - 369