Environmental externalities and social optimality in biomass markets: waste-to-energy in The Netherlands and biofuels in France

Vollebergh, Herman R.J.

doi:10.1016/s0301-4215(97)00052-9

Cited by 28 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, and much more important, these private 9 revenues only reflect a net transfer between different consumers, viz. between consumers of electricity and final waste disposal, and this may reflect a highly distorted value (Vollebergh, 1997). Therefore, it is more appropriate to measure this contribution by its social value in the energy (and materials) system (including potential savings on both private and environmental costs).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Burn or Bury? A Social Cost Comparison of Final Waste Disposal Methods

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Burn or Bury? A Social Cost Comparison of Final Waste Disposal Methods

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relatively lower rate of resistance against EfW in the more recent studies might be explained by improvements in EfW incinerator technologies [33] and raised public environmental awareness. Several research studies have conducted a social cost-benefit analysis of EfW compared to other waste management options [34][35][36][37][38][39] and demonstrate the social benefits of energy recovery.…”

Section: Fig 1 Waste Hierarchy Adopted By Waste Strategy Documents mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Projects involving EfW require significant capital investment and operating costs, which typically require investment contribution from governments. In terms of operational costs, some previous research studies demonstrated that EfW is more expensive than landfilling [34,35,41,42] but can become more reasonable when social costs are accounted [36,37,41] reported that the estimated cost of EfW is about $58 per tonne in Boulder (US), which is higher than the typical landfill levy imposed across the US. Furthermore, through advances in technology used to recovery energy activities, there are opportunities to improve its efficiency and cost effectiveness.…”

Section: Fig 1 Waste Hierarchy Adopted By Waste Strategy Documents mentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of energy recovery from construction and demolition waste in Australia

Shooshtarian¹,

Maqsood²,

Wong³

et al. 2019

JCEMI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The construction industry in Australia has grown significantly in the past two decades in the wake of population growth, migration and expansion in the tertiary education industry. The growing population has necessitated extensive property development, better public transport and improved infrastructure. To achieve all of this, construction activities have been on rise; resulting in a significant growth in construction and demolition (C&D) waste generation. Australia has adopted a waste hierarchy to manage waste including C&D waste. According to this notion, waste produced should be managed in a hierarchal order comprising reduction, re-using, recycling, energy recovering, treatment and disposal. Energy recovery of waste is a new concept to the Australian context where, due to a lack of regulatory support and environmental concerns, it has not been well-developed. This review study aims to provide insight into Energy from Waste (EfW) activities in Australia at both national and jurisdictional levels. It reviews associated regulations and standards to show how EfW is being perceived and practiced. The findings demonstrate that Australia has a long way to go to fully utilise EfW opportunities, the role of government in providing regulatory support to promote EfW is found to be of particular importance. Furthermore, several measures are recommended to navigate efforts leading to improved C&D energy recovery activities in Australia. The results are expected to be beneficial to the C&D waste industry, researchers and regulatory authorities in the development of useful regulations and best management practices.

show abstract

“…Also, the shrub barrier could reduce traffic noise and headlight glare (van der Heijden and Martens, 1982), contributing to sound environment and road safety. As with other biomass for bioenergy production, utilizing roadside biomass will provide for carbon sequestration, will encourage technological development and innovation, and offer opportunities for employment and regional development (Vollebergh, 1997;Volk et al, 2004). In this study, we have been mostly focusing on the Easternmost part of the Overijssel province in Netherlands, however our analysis and methods are quite general, and could be easily applied elsewhere and scaled up to the whole of Netherlands and beyond.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the potential of roadside vegetation for bioenergy production

Voinov

Arodudu

Duren

et al. 2015

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe Netherlands, like other European Union countries, is under intense pressure to increase its national share of energy from renewable sources in accordance with 2020 Kyoto Protocol obligations. Bioenergy in this context is especially interesting because it can replace liquid fuels so much in demand for transportation. In Europe, due to high population density, and intensive use of limited land resources, sources of biomass are quite limited. This study examines the potential of road verge for biomass production. In this case there is no conflict with agricultural production e "food for fuel" conflict e and very little problems with natural conservation, since we are focusing on already disturbed and heavily used and polluted areas. The road verge is also easily accessible and in most cases already has to be maintained and cultivated. We use GIS (Geographical information system) to identify the total area of land along the roads in the Netherlands that can potentially be used for bioenergy purposes. We then consider the opportunities and constraints of cultivating various types of biomass, mainly focusing on grasses and willow, short rotation coppice, as biomass sources on the road verge. Based on that, we distinguish between areas that are unavailable due to safety requirements, areas that are conditionally available provided that current regulations are revised and areas that are already unconditionally available. We assess the entire production chain in terms of Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI), and consider various combinations of grass and willow operations for bioenergy production. Looking at several roads in Eastern Overijssel, we have estimated that there is approximately 4.24e4.68 ha/km of road verge conditionally available along highways, A-roads, and some 0.80e2.67 ha/km available along local roads, N-roads. However, only 1.02e1.62 ha/km and 0.37e0.80 ha/km of A and N roads respectively are available unconditionally. The EROEI for some scenarios of both grass-based and willow-based production were quite high, 15e42, making such use of road verge quite promising.

show abstract

Environmental externalities and social optimality in biomass markets: waste-to-energy in The Netherlands and biofuels in France

Cited by 28 publications

References 5 publications

Burn or Bury? A Social Cost Comparison of Final Waste Disposal Methods

Burn or Bury? A Social Cost Comparison of Final Waste Disposal Methods

Review of energy recovery from construction and demolition waste in Australia

Estimating the potential of roadside vegetation for bioenergy production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About