IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i6p1650-d517898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Benefit and Risk Analysis of Low iLUC Bioenergy Production in Europe Using Monte Carlo Simulation

Author

Listed:
  • Traverso L.

    (Economy, Engineering, Society and Business Department (DEIM), University of Tuscia, 00100 Viterbo, Italy)

  • Mazzoli E.

    (Economy, Engineering, Society and Business Department (DEIM), University of Tuscia, 00100 Viterbo, Italy)

  • Miller C.

    (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 00153 Rome, Italy
    The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.)

  • Pulighe G.

    (CREA Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00198 Rome, Italy)

  • Perelli C.

    (Economy, Engineering, Society and Business Department (DEIM), University of Tuscia, 00100 Viterbo, Italy)

  • Morese M. M.

    (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 00153 Rome, Italy
    The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.)

  • Branca G.

    (Economy, Engineering, Society and Business Department (DEIM), University of Tuscia, 00100 Viterbo, Italy)

Abstract

Extensive surfaces of land are currently under-utilized, marginal and/or contaminated (MUC) in many EU and neighbouring countries. In the past few years, scientific research has demonstrated that bioenergy crops can potentially render this land profitable, generating income for the local populations and, at the same time, reaching the goals of the new Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) without interfering with food production. The main purpose of this paper is to measure net economic returns by computing benefits and costs of low indirect Land Use Change (iLUC) biofuel production on MUC land from the perspective of both the private investors and social welfare. A standard cost-benefit technique was applied to analyse and compare net returns of different advanced bioenergy value-chains in monetary terms. Productivity, economic feasibility and green-house gas (GHG) emissions impact were assessed and considered for the economic analysis. The considered pathways were cellulosic or second generation (2G) ethanol from Giant reed (Arundo donax) in Italy, electricity from miscanthus, biochemicals from spontaneous grass and cultivated Lucerne (Alpha-alfae) with sorghum for biomethane in Germany, and 2G ethanol from Willow (Salix viminalis) in Ukraine. For the risk assessment, Monte Carlo simulation was applied. The results indicated that in Italy and Ukraine, although the production of 2G ethanol would allow positive net yearly margins, the investments will not be profitable compared to the baseline scenarios. In Germany, the work showed good profitability for combined heat and power (CHP) and biochemicals. On the other hand, investments in biomethane showed negative results compared with the baseline scenarios. Finally, the Monte Carlo simulation enabled us to identify the range of possible economic results that could be attained once volatility is factored in. While for Italy the likelihood of yielding positive results remains lower than 20 percent, case studies in Ukraine and Germany showed higher certainty levels, ranging from 49 to 91 percent.

Suggested Citation

  • Traverso L. & Mazzoli E. & Miller C. & Pulighe G. & Perelli C. & Morese M. M. & Branca G., 2021. "Cost Benefit and Risk Analysis of Low iLUC Bioenergy Production in Europe Using Monte Carlo Simulation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:6:p:1650-:d:517898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/6/1650/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/6/1650/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lorenzo Di Lucia & Barbara Ribeiro, 2018. "Enacting Responsibilities in Landscape Design: The Case of Advanced Biofuels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    2. Elio H. Londero, 2003. "Shadow Prices for Project Appraisal," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3064.
    3. Testa, Riccardo & Foderà, Mario & Di Trapani, Anna Maria & Tudisca, Salvatore & Sgroi, Filippo, 2016. "Giant reed as energy crop for Southern Italy: An economic feasibility study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 558-564.
    4. Holmatov, B. & Hoekstra, A.Y. & Krol, M.S., 2019. "Land, water and carbon footprints of circular bioenergy production systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 224-235.
    5. Carlos S. Ciria & Marina Sanz & Juan Carrasco & Pilar Ciria, 2019. "Identification of Arable Marginal Lands under Rainfed Conditions for Bioenergy Purposes in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Markel, Evan & Sims, Charles & English, Burton C., 2018. "Policy uncertainty and the optimal investment decisions of second-generation biofuel producers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 89-100.
    7. Yazan, Devrim Murat & Mandras, Giovanni & Garau, Giorgio, 2017. "Environmental and economic sustainability of integrated production in bio-refineries: The thistle case in Sardinia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(PB), pages 349-360.
    8. Calliope Panoutsou & David Chiaramonti, 2020. "Socio-Economic Opportunities from Miscanthus Cultivation in Marginal Land for Bioenergy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, May.
    9. Lewandowski, I. & Schmidt, U. & Londo, M. & Faaij, A., 2006. "The economic value of the phytoremediation function - Assessed by the example of cadmium remediation by willow (Salix ssp)," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 68-89, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roberto Murano & Natascia Maisano & Roberta Selvaggi & Gioacchino Pappalardo & Biagio Pecorino, 2021. "Critical Issues and Opportunities for Producing Biomethane in Italy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Biao Li & Tao Wang & Chunxiao Li & Zhen Dong & Hua Yang & Yi Sun & Pengfei Wang, 2022. "A Strategy for Determining the Decommissioning Life of Energy Equipment Based on Economic Factors and Operational Stability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-24, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pulighe, Giuseppe & Bonati, Guido & Colangeli, Marco & Morese, Maria Michela & Traverso, Lorenzo & Lupia, Flavio & Khawaja, Cosette & Janssen, Rainer & Fava, Francesco, 2019. "Ongoing and emerging issues for sustainable bioenergy production on marginal lands in the Mediterranean regions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 58-70.
    2. Deborah Bentivoglio & Adele Finco & Mirian Rumenos Piedade Bacchi, 2016. "Interdependencies between Biofuel, Fuel and Food Prices: The Case of the Brazilian Ethanol Market," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    3. Jolanta Bijańska & Krzysztof Wodarski & Aneta Aleksander, 2022. "Analysis of the Financing Options for Pro-Ecological Projects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-30, March.
    4. Aditi Sengupta & Priyanka Kushwaha & Antonia Jim & Peter A. Troch & Raina Maier, 2020. "New Soil, Old Plants, and Ubiquitous Microbes: Evaluating the Potential of Incipient Basaltic Soil to Support Native Plant Growth and Influence Belowground Soil Microbial Community Composition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, May.
    5. Charlotte Stead & Zia Wadud & Chris Nash & Hu Li, 2019. "Introduction of Biodiesel to Rail Transport: Lessons from the Road Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, February.
    6. Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski & Paweł Dudziec & Michał Krzyżaniak & Ewelina Olba-Zięty, 2021. "Solid Biomass Energy Potential as a Development Opportunity for Rural Communities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, June.
    7. Cosette Khawaja & Rainer Janssen & Rita Mergner & Dominik Rutz & Marco Colangeli & Lorenzo Traverso & Maria Michela Morese & Manuela Hirschmugl & Carina Sobe & Alfonso Calera & David Cifuentes & Stefa, 2021. "Viability and Sustainability Assessment of Bioenergy Value Chains on Underutilised Lands in the EU and Ukraine," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-21, March.
    8. Holmatov, B. & Schyns, J.F. & Krol, M.S. & Gerbens-Leenes, P.W. & Hoekstra, A.Y., 2021. "Can crop residues provide fuel for future transport? Limited global residue bioethanol potentials and large associated land, water and carbon footprints," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    9. Fabio G. Santeramo & Monica Delsignore & Enrica Imbert & Mariarosaria Lombardi, 2023. "The Future of the EU Bioenergy Sector: Economic, Environmental, Social, and Legislative Challenges," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 17(1), pages 1-1–52, April.
    10. Yudha Gusti Wibowo & Hana Safitri & Ida Bagus Ilham Malik & Sudibyo & Sugeng Priyanto, 2022. "Alternative Low-Cost Treatment for Real Acid Mine Drainage: Performance, Bioaccumulation, Translocation, Economic, Post-Harvest, and Bibliometric Analyses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
    11. Fan, Yee Van & Romanenko, Sergey & Gai, Limei & Kupressova, Ekaterina & Varbanov, Petar Sabev & Klemeš, Jiří Jaromír, 2021. "Biomass integration for energy recovery and efficient use of resources: Tomsk Region," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    12. Toma, Pierluigi & Frittelli, Massimo & Apergis, Nicholas, 2023. "The economic sustainability of optimizing feedstock imports with environmental constraints," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PB).
    13. Maria Raimondo & Francesco Caracciolo & Luigi Cembalo & Gaetano Chinnici & Biagio Pecorino & Mario D’Amico, 2018. "Making Virtue Out of Necessity: Managing the Citrus Waste Supply Chain for Bioeconomy Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Martina Kršková, 2008. "Evaluation," Ekonomika a Management, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2008(1).
    15. Moritz Von Cossel & Iris Lewandowski & Berien Elbersen & Igor Staritsky & Michiel Van Eupen & Yasir Iqbal & Stefan Mantel & Danilo Scordia & Giorgio Testa & Salvatore Luciano Cosentino & Oksana Maliar, 2019. "Marginal Agricultural Land Low-Input Systems for Biomass Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-25, August.
    16. Bunyod Holmatov & Arjen Y. Hoekstra & Maarten S. Krol, 2022. "EU’s bioethanol potential from wheat straw and maize stover and the environmental footprint of residue-based bioethanol," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 1-18, January.
    17. Song, Qingbin & Li, Jinhui & Duan, Huabo & Yu, Danfeng & Wang, Zhishi, 2017. "Towards to sustainable energy-efficient city: A case study of Macau," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 504-514.
    18. Gómez-Marín, N. & Bridgwater, A.V., 2021. "Mapping bioenergy stakeholders: A systematic and scientometric review of capabilities and expertise in bioenergy research in the United Kingdom," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    19. Bórawski, Piotr & Bełdycka-Bórawska, Aneta & Jankowski, Krzysztof Jóżef & Dubis, Bogdan & Dunn, James W., 2020. "Development of wind energy market in the European Union," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 691-700.
    20. Paladino, O. & Neviani, M., 2018. "A closed loop biowaste to biofuel integrated process fed with waste frying oil, organic waste and algal biomass: Feasibility at pilot scale," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 61-74.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:6:p:1650-:d:517898. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.