IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genstf/201810180700001650.html

Biomass for Bioenergy: Optimal Collection Mechanisms and Pricing when Feedstock Supply Does Not Equal Availability

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Chao
  • Hayes, Dermot J.
  • Jacobs, Keri L.

Abstract

The supply chain connecting biofuel processing firms and suppliers of biomass is evolving, and processors face a choice in the collection and pricing strategies they will employ to procure biomass. One option is to pay a single price for biomass collected field-side (processor collection). Another is to pay a single price for biomass at the plant gate (supplier delivery). The literature in this area is relatively young, but there is a sense that the evolution of contracting and pricing structures will dictate the industry’s success, and ultimately the costs of producing biofuels from dedicated and non-dedicated energy crops. We examine the collection and pricing choices for a cost-minimizing cellulosic biofuel processor, who initially has monopsony power in feedstock procurement in their collection area. We derive optimal prices, total expenditures on feedstocks, and the collection areas required to meet a processor’s fixed input needs. We show that while societal welfare is greatest under supplier delivery; however, the processor will be indifferent between supplier delivery and processor collection unless they are concerned about entry of a competing processor. When this is the case, the processor can use the processorcollection mechanism as an effective deterrent to entry. Numerical simulation based on corn stover for biomass is used to illustrate optimal pricing and the extent of biomass collection areas for different procurement and pricing strategies. We use these findings to calculate the rates at which collection costs increase for a monopsonistic stover processor constrained to a defined procurement area, as might emerge as the industry moves towards commercialization. The derived marginal cost curve for a monopsonistic processor of stover is compared with the marginal cost curve across alternative feedstocks.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Chao & Hayes, Dermot J. & Jacobs, Keri L., 2018. "Biomass for Bioenergy: Optimal Collection Mechanisms and Pricing when Feedstock Supply Does Not Equal Availability," ISU General Staff Papers 201810180700001650, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:isu:genstf:201810180700001650
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/ea2c5839-145a-48b7-b307-f25ca0a86af4/content
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Zhang, Aiping & Gao, Ji & Quan, Jinling & Zhou, Bo & Lam, Shu Kee & Zhou, Yuyu & Lin, Erda & Jiang, Kejun & Clarke, Leon E. & Zhang, Xuesong & Yu, Sha & Kyle, G.P. & Li, Hongbo & Zhou, Sheng & Gao, Sh, 2021. "The implications for energy crops under China's climate change challenges," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    2. Graubner, Marten & Sexton, Richard J., 2023. "More competitive than you think? Pricing and location of processing firms in agricultural markets," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 105(3), pages 784-808.
    3. Marten Graubner & Richard J. Sexton, 2023. "More competitive than you think? Pricing and location of processing firms in agricultural markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(3), pages 784-808, May.
    4. Sylwia Roszkowska & Natalia Szubska-Włodarczyk, 2022. "What are the barriers to agricultural biomass market development? The case of Poland," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 75-84, March.
    5. Burli, Pralhad & Lal, Pankaj & Wolde, Bernabas & Jose, Shibu & Bardhan, Sougata, 2019. "Factors affecting willingness to cultivate switchgrass: Evidence from a farmer survey in Missouri," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 20-29.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:isu:genstf:201810180700001650. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.html .

    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.