IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v49y2015icp211-220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accounting for the utilisation of geothermal energy resources within the genuine progress indicator—A methodological review

Author

Listed:
  • Cook, David
  • Davidsdottir, Brynhildur
  • Petursson, Jón Geir

Abstract

The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) was initiated to mainly reflect strong rather than weak sustainability principles and embrace a ‘Fisherian’ understanding of income and capital. Prior to this review, neither existing calculation methodologies nor academic reviews of the GPI had considered the possibility that geothermal energy resources might not deliver sustainable yields. Although geothermal energy is renewable in the sense of the Earth’s almost ubiquitous capacity to store heat, the resources are frequently utilised at a rate that is unsustainable. Pressure recovery and fluid-heat recharge periods typically endure for several decades or more. Whenever geothermal resources are utilised unsustainably, this paper contends that the GPI should deduct monetary costs for the excess depletion. This approach would maintain the GPI’s methodological correctness as a measure of sustainable economic welfare in current time terms. Failure to do so is affirmative of the weak sustainability paradigm, inferring that overexploited energy resources can be either fully replaced or partially substituted when their yields begin to diminish. This paper sets out a new method for calculating GPI cost deductions for the unsustainable utilisation of geothermal energy resources. The outlined approach synthesises existing academic theory concerning geothermal production modes and levelised energy cost calculations.

Suggested Citation

  • Cook, David & Davidsdottir, Brynhildur & Petursson, Jón Geir, 2015. "Accounting for the utilisation of geothermal energy resources within the genuine progress indicator—A methodological review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 211-220.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:49:y:2015:i:c:p:211-220
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.171
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115004414
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Menegaki, Angeliki N., 2011. "Growth and renewable energy in Europe: A random effect model with evidence for neutrality hypothesis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 257-263, March.
    2. Posner, Stephen M. & Costanza, Robert, 2011. "A summary of ISEW and GPI studies at multiple scales and new estimates for Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and the State of Maryland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1972-1980, September.
    3. Dietz, Simon & Neumayer, Eric, 2007. "Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 617-626, March.
    4. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Franco, Carol & Lawn, Philip & Talberth, John & Jackson, Tim & Aylmer, Camille, 2013. "Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 57-68.
    5. McKenzie,George W., 1983. "Measuring Economic Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521248624, April.
    6. Kruyt, Bert & van Vuuren, D.P. & de Vries, H.J.M. & Groenenberg, H., 2009. "Indicators for energy security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2166-2181, June.
    7. Hähnlein, Stefanie & Bayer, Peter & Ferguson, Grant & Blum, Philipp, 2013. "Sustainability and policy for the thermal use of shallow geothermal energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 914-925.
    8. William D. Nordhaus, 1995. "How Should We Measure Sustainable Income?," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1101, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    9. Bartelmus, Peter, 2010. "Use and usefulness of sustainability economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2053-2055, September.
    10. Greene, David L. & Hopson, Janet L. & Li, Jia, 2006. "Have we run out of oil yet? Oil peaking analysis from an optimist's perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 515-531, March.
    11. Costanza, Robert & Erickson, Jon & Fligger, Karen & Adams, Alan & Adams, Christian & Altschuler, Ben & Balter, Stephanie & Fisher, Brendan & Hike, Jessica & Kelly, Joe, 2004. "Estimates of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Vermont, Chittenden County and Burlington, from 1950 to 2000," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 139-155, November.
    12. Asheim, Geir B. & Hartwick, John M., 2011. "Anomalies in green national accounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2303-2307.
    13. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    14. R. M. Solow, 1974. "Intergenerational Equity and Exhaustible Resources," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(5), pages 29-45.
    15. Neumayer, Eric, 2004. "Sustainability and well-being indicators," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 30851, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Wright, Daniel G. & Dey, Prasanta K. & Brammer, John G., 2013. "A fuzzy levelised energy cost method for renewable energy technology assessment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 315-323.
    17. Tom Kuhlman & John Farrington, 2010. "What is Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 2(11), pages 1-13, November.
    18. Eric Neumayer, 1999. "The ISEW -- not an Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 77-101, September.
    19. Lawn, Philip A., 2003. "A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 105-118, February.
    20. Ekins, Paul & Simon, Sandrine & Deutsch, Lisa & Folke, Carl & De Groot, Rudolf, 2003. "A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 165-185, March.
    21. Brennan, Andrew John, 2008. "Theoretical foundations of sustainable economic welfare indicators -- ISEW and political economy of the disembedded system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-19, August.
    22. Manzano-Agugliaro, F. & Alcayde, A. & Montoya, F.G. & Zapata-Sierra, A. & Gil, C., 2013. "Scientific production of renewable energies worldwide: An overview," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 134-143.
    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. Pan, Shu-Yuan & Gao, Mengyao & Shah, Kinjal J. & Zheng, Jianming & Pei, Si-Lu & Chiang, Pen-Chi, 2019. "Establishment of enhanced geothermal energy utilization plans: Barriers and strategies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 19-32.
    2. Melikoglu, Mehmet, 2017. "Geothermal energy in Turkey and around the World: A review of the literature and an analysis based on Turkey's Vision 2023 energy targets," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 485-492.
    3. Moya, Diego & Aldás, Clay & Kaparaju, Prasad, 2018. "Geothermal energy: Power plant technology and direct heat applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 889-901.
    4. David Cook & Nína Saviolidis & Brynhildur Davíðsdóttir & Lára Jóhannsdóttir & Snjólfur Ólafsson, 2019. "Synergies and Trade-Offs in the Sustainable Development Goals—The Implications of the Icelandic Tourism Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(15), pages 1-23, August.
    5. Kevin McDonnell & Levente Molnár & Mary Harty & Fionnuala Murphy, 2020. "Feasibility Study of Carbon Dioxide Plume Geothermal Systems in Germany−Utilising Carbon Dioxide for Energy," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(10), pages 1-24, May.

    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:eee:rensus:v:49:y:2015:i:c:p:211-220. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.