mirage   mirage   mirage

Biofuel Economics in a Setting of Multiple Objectives & Unintended Consequences

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.creator Jaeger, William K.
dc.creator Egelkraut, Thorsten M.
dc.date.accessioned 2011-11-17T19:46:55Z
dc.date.available 2011-11-17T19:46:55Z
dc.date.issued 2011-09
dc.identifier.citation Jaeger W.K. and T.M. Egelkraut, 2011. Biofuel economics in a setting of multiple objectives and unintended consequences. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 15(9): 4320-4333. en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1957/25614
dc.description This is the author's peer-reviewed final manuscript as accepted by the publisher. The published article is copyrighted by Elsevier and can be found here: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/renewable-and-sustainable-energy-reviews/ en_US
dc.description.abstract This paper examines biofuels from an economic perspective and evaluates the merits of promoting biofuel production in the context of the policies’ multiple objectives, life-cycle implications, pecuniary externalities, and other unintended consequences. The policy goals most often cited are to reduce fossil fuel use and to lower greenhouse gas emissions. But the presence of multiple objectives and various indirect effects complicates normative evaluation. To address some of these complicating factors, we look at a several combinations of policy alternatives that achieve the same set of incremental gains along the two primary targeted policy dimensions, making it possible to compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of each combination of policies. For example, when this approach is applied to U.S.-produced biofuels, they are found to be 14 to 31 times as costly as alternatives like raising the gas tax or promoting energy efficiency improvements. The analysis also finds the scale of the potential contributions of biofuels to be extremely small in both the U.S. and EU. Mandated U.S. corn ethanol production for 2025 reduces U.S. petroleum input use by 1.75%, and would have negligible net effects on CO2 emissions; and although EU imports of Brazilian ethanol may look better given the high costs of other alternatives, this option is equivalent, at most, to a 1.20% reduction in EU gasoline consumption. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Elsevier en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries Vol. 15 (2011) en_US
dc.subject biofuel en_US
dc.subject biodiesel en_US
dc.subject cost-effectiveness en_US
dc.subject indirect land use change effects en_US
dc.subject net energy en_US
dc.subject multiple objectives en_US
dc.subject ethanol en_US
dc.subject GHG en_US
dc.title Biofuel Economics in a Setting of Multiple Objectives & Unintended Consequences en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.description.peerreview yes en_US

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ScholarsArchive@OSU

Advanced Search


My Account