Impact of single versus multiple policy options on the economic feasibility of biogas energy production: Swine and dairy operations in Nova Scotia

Energy Policy

Volumn 35, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 4597-4610

  Brown, Bettina B ^a   Yiridoe, Emmanuel K ^a   Gordon, Robert ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biogas energy; Livestock production; Policy schemes

Indexed keywords

COSTS; ENERGY POLICY; FARMS; MANURES;

INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN; LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION; NET PRESENT VALUE; PAYBACK PERIOD;

BIOGAS;

ANOXIC CONDITIONS; BIOGAS; ENERGY MARKET; ENERGY POLICY; LIVESTOCK FARMING; MANURE;

CANADA; NORTH AMERICA; NOVA SCOTIA;

SUIDAE;

EID: 34250802631     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.023     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Anderson J.L. Economic assessment of anaerobic digestion systems for dairy waste disposal and energy recovery: effect of selected institutional and technological changes. Resource and Conservation 8 (1982) 131-146
2. Barker J., and Walls F. Livestock manure production rates and nutrient content. North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual (2002), College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
3. Blanchard J.P., and Gill T.A. Methane Production from Agricultural and Domestic Wastes (1987), Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London, NY, USA
4. Brown, B.B., Yiridoe, E.K., Gordon, R., 2006. Economic feasibility of biogas energy production for small and mid-size swine and dairy operations in Nova Scotia. Final Report for the Technology Development 2000 Program, Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Truro, NS, Canada.
5. Burke, D.A., 2001. Dairy Waste Anaerobic Digestion Handbook: Options for Recovering Beneficial Products from Dairy Manure. Environmental Energy Company, Olympia, WA, USA. Available at website: www.makingenergy.com. Verified 12 August 2004
6. Cicchetti C.J., and Reinbergs M. Opportunities for Canadian energy policy. Journal of Business Administration 10 (1978) 363-371
7. Côte C., Masse D.I., and Quessy S. Reduction of indicator and pathogenic micro-organisms by psychrophilic anaerobic digestion in swine slurries. Bioresource Technology 97 (2006) 686-691
8. Engler, C.R., Jordan, E.R., McFarland, M.J., Lacewell, R.D., 1999. Economics and environmental impact of biogas production as a manure management strategy. In: Texas Animal Manure Management Conference: 1999 Proceedings. Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, USA.
9. Ernst, M., Rodecker, J., Luvaga, E., Alexander, T., Kliebenstein, J., Miranowski, J., 2000. Viability of methane production by anaerobic digestion on iowa swine farms. 1999 Swine Research Report No. ASL-R1693,Department of Management and Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
10. Freeman N.B. The Politics of Power: Ontario Hydro and its Government, 1906-995 (1996), University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON, Canada
11. Fischer J.R., Osburn D.D., Meador N.F., and Fulhage C.D. Economics of a swine manure anaerobic digester. Transactions of the ASAE 24 (1981) 1306-1310
12. Garrison, M.V., Richard, T.L., 2001. Final Report for the Iowa Livestock Industry Waste: Characterization and Methane Recovery Information Dissemination Project. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Energy and Geological Resources Division, Des Moines, IA, USA.
13. Gebremedhin, K., Gooch, C., Wright, P., Wu, C., 2004. Simulation of heat transfer for biogas production. ASAE Paper No. 044165. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, USA.
14. Goodrich, P.R., Schmidt, D., 2002. Anaerobic digestion for energy and pollution control. ASAE Paper No. 02-4188, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, USA.
15. Government of Nova Scotia, 2001. Powering Nova Scotia's economy. Nova Scotia Energy Strategy Public Discussion Paper, Halifax, NS, Canada.
16. Guan T.Y., and Holley R.A. Pathogen survival in swine manure environments and transmission of human enteric illness-a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 32 (2003) 383-392
17. Hazeltine B., and Bull C. Appropriate Technology: Tools, Choices, and Implications (1999), Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA
18. Higham I. Economics of anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste. Technical Summary (1998), National Environmental Technology Centre, Culham, Oxfordshire, UK
19. Hoeg, R., 2005. Demonstration coordinator, GHG mitigation. Personal Communication. Atlantic Swine Research Partnership, Inc., Truro, NS, Canada.
20. House, H.K., Hilborn, D., 2005. A small scale anaerobic digester operating in Ontario-Klaesi Brothers Farm. In: Proceedings of the symposium on Dairy Manure Management: Treatment, Handling, and Community Relations, NRAES-176, Syracuse, NY, USA, March 2005.
21. Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), 2005. Labor Market Information (LMI). Available at website: www.labourmarketinformation.ca. Verified 10 October 2005.
22. Information and Advisory Service on Appropriate Technology (ISAT), 1996. Biogas Digest, Volume 1, Biogas Basics. Eschborn, Germany. Available at website: www.gtz.de/isat/at_info/biogas/basics.basics.html. Verified 21 December 2005.
23. Jewell W.J., Wright P.E., Fleszar N.P., Green G., Safinski A., and Zucker A. Evaluation of Anaerobic Digestion Options for Groups of Dairy farms in Upstate New York (1997), Department of Agriculture and Biological Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
24. Johnson, B., 2005. Manager of renewable energy. Personal Communication. Nova Scotia Power Incorporated, Halifax, NS, Canada.
25. Kobayashi S., and Masuda Y. The effects of operational and financial factors on the economics of biogas production from dairy cow feces and wastewater. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 6 1 (1993) 139-145
26. Lazarus, W.F., Rudstrom, M., 2003. Financial feasibility of dairy digester systems under alternative policy scenarios, valuation of benefits, and production efficiencies: a Minnesota case study. In: Proceedings of the Anaerobic Digester Technology Applications in Animal Agriculture Conference, Raleigh, NC, USA, (2-4 June 2003).
27. Liao P.H., Lo K.V., and Chieng S.T. Effect of liquid-solids separation on biogas production from dairy manure. Energy in Agriculture 3 (1984) 61-69
28. Lichtman R., Ellegard A., Lal S., and Sharma N. The improved biogas systems project: results and future work. Energy for Sustainable Development 3 4 (1996) 28-42
29. Martin, J.H., 2005. An Evaluation of a Mesophilic, Modified Plug Flow Anaerobic Digester for Dairy Cattle Manure: Final Report. Eastern Research Group, Inc., Morrisville, NC, USA.
30. Martin, J.H., Wright, P.E., Inglis, S.F., Roos, K.F., 2003. Evaluation of the performance of a 550 cow plug-flow anaerobic digester under steady-state conditions. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Animal, Agricultural, and Food Processing Wastes, 12-15 October 2003. ASAE Publication No. 701P1203.
31. Mattocks R. Why digesters make dollar sense now. BioCycle 42 3 (2001) 46-49
32. Mehta A. The Economics and Feasibility of Electricity Generation Using Manure Digesters on Small to Mid-size Dairy Farms. Energy Analysis and Policy Program, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics (2002), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
33. Mid-West Plan Service, 1993. Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook. Publication No. MWPS-18, third ed. Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA. Available at website: www.mwps.org/index.cfm. Verified 13 September 2006.
34. Moser, M., Mattocks, R., Gettier, S., Ross, K., 1998. Benefits, costs and operating experience at seven new agricultural digesters. Paper presented at BioEnergy 1998: Expanding Bioenergy Paternerships Conference, Madison, WI, USA, (4-8 October 1998).
35. Moser, M., Mattocks, R., 2004. Pre-Design Study and Feasibility Assessment of Anaerobic Digesters and Cogeneration: Moffett Farms, New Brunswick, Canada. RCM Digesters, Berkeley, CA, USA.
36. Natural Resources Canada (NRC), 2003. Renewable Energy Development Initiative (REDI) Factsheet. Ottawa, ON, Canada. Available at website: www.2nrcan.gc.ca. Verified 28 April 2004.
37. Nelson, C., Lamb, J., 2002. Final Report: Haubenschild Farms Anaerobic Digester. The Minnesota Project, St. Paul, MN, USA. Available at website: www.mnproject.org/pdf/haubyfinal3.pdf. Verified 8 August 2005.
38. Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (NSDAF), 2004a. Nova Scotia Farm Practices Board decision: Inglewood farm versus concerned citizens of Lower Truro. Monograph. Nova Scotia Farm Practices Board, Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Halifax, NS, Canada.
39. Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (NSDAF), 2004b. 2003 Swine-Farrow to Finish Results. Swine Farm Management Analysis Project, Truro, NS, Canada. Available at website: www.gov.ns.ca. Verified 12 May 2005.
40. Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (NSDAF), 2004c. 2004 Dairy Results. Dairy Farm Management Analysis Project. Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Truro, NS, Canada. Available at website: http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsaf/bmed/fmap/dairy/dairy2004comp.pdf. Verified 12 May 2005.
41. Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (NSDAF), 2005. Farm Investment Fund Factsheet. Truro, NS, Canada. Available at website: www.gov.ns.ca/nsaf/prm/programs/fifguide.htm. Verified 21 November 2005.
42. Nyboer J., and Pape-Salmon A. A Review of Existing Renewable Energy Facilities in Canada. Canadian Industrial Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Centre (2003), Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada
43. Peebles, R., Reinemann, D., 1994. Demand-side management/energy conservation potential for Wisconsin dairy farms. ASAE Paper No. 943563, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, USA.
44. Potter, T.F., 2002. Map for the development of rural-empowering action (R-E action) in Colorado. Final Report. Governor's Office of Energy Management and Conservation, Denver, CO, USA.
45. Proops J., Gay P., Speck S., and Schroder T. The lifetime pollution implications of various types of electricity generation: an input-output analysis. Energy Policy 24 3 (1996) 229-237
46. Reis A., and Engel R. Feasibility Study on Implementing Anaerobic Digestion Technology on Humboldt County Dairy Farms (2003), Schatz Energy Research Center, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, USA
47. Roberts B. Customer service representative. Personal Communication (2005), Irving Oil Limited, Saint John, NB, Canada
48. Roe B., Teisl A.F., Levy A., and Russell M. US consumes' willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 29 (2001) 917-925
49. Rowlands I.H., Scott D., and Parker P. Ready to go green? The prospects for premium-priced green electricity in Waterloo Region, Ontario. Environments 28 3 (2000) 97-119
50. Rowlands I.H., Scott D., and Parker P. Consumers and green electricity: profiling potential purchasers. Business Strategy and the Environment 12 (2003) 36-48
51. Stowell, R., Henry, C., 2003. The economic impacts of various public-policy scenarios for methane recovery on dairy farms. In: Proceedings of the ASAE Annual International Meeting, 27-30 July 2003, Las Vegas, NV. ASAE Paper No. 034013, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, USA.
52. Tiffany, D.G., 2005. Economic analysis: co-generation using wind and biodiesel-powered generators. Staff Paper Series, Department of Applied Economics, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.
53. Treasury Board Secretariat, 1976. Benefit-Cost Analysis Guide for Regulatory Programs. Chapter 11: Discounting. Ottawa, Ont., Canada. Available at website: www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tb/rad/english/cbgew11.html. Verified 13 September 2005.
54. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1992. Agriculture Waste Management Field Handbook (Part 651). Chapter 4: Agricultural Waste Characteristics. USDA-National Resource Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USA. Available at website: www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/awm/awmfh.html. Verified 13, September 2006.
55. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2005. AgSTAR Handbook. The AgSTAR Program, Washington, DC, USA. Available at website: www.epa.gov/agstar/resources/andbook.html. Verified 3 May 2005.
56. Van Roestel, J., 2005. Field crop specialist. Personal Communication. Agra Point International, Inc., Kentville, NS, Canada.
57. Wake, C., Burakowski, L., Lines, G., McKenzie, K., Huntington, T., 2006. Cross Border Indicators of Climate Change Over the Past Century: Northeastern United States and Canadian Maritime Region. Environment Canada, Dartmouth, NS, Canada.
58. Welsh F.W., Schulte D.D., Krocker E.J., and Lapp H.M. The effect of anaerobic digestion upon swine manure odors. Canadian Agricultural Engineering 19 2 (1977) 122-126
59. Winter, C., 2002. A Green Energy Strategy for Ontario. The Conservation Council of Ontario, Toronto, Ont., Canada.
60. Wright, P., Inglis, S., 2003. An economic comparison of two anaerobic digestion systems on dairy farms. In: Proceedings of the ASAE Annual International Meeting, 27-30 July 2003. ASAE Paper No. 034154, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, USA.
61. Yang P., and Gan C. An on-farm swine waste management system in Hawaii. Bioresource Technology 65 (1998) 21-27
62. Yiridoe E.K., Langyintuo A.S., and Dogbe W. Economics of the impact of alternative rice cropping systems on subsistent farming: whole-farm analysis in Northern Ghana. Agricultural Systems 91 (2006) 102-121