Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T05:21:07.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carbon Markets and Methane Digesters: Potential Implications for the Dairy Sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Nigel Key  and
Stacy Sneeringer
Nigel Key
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
Stacy Sneeringer
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Anaerobic digesters that capture and burn manure methane can provide a renewable source of energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Paying producers for these emission reductions—either directly or through a carbon offset market—could substantially increase digester adoption. However, there is likely to be wide variation in the scale, location, and characteristics of adopters, so these policies could have long run structural implications for the livestock sector. Using a model of digester profits and data from a nationally-representative survey of dairy operations we estimate the likely distribution of digester adoption and profits under different carbon price scenarios.

Keywords

anaerobic digester, carbon offsets, climate change, distribution, livestock, methaneQ12Q16Q42Q54Q58
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 569 - 590
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beddoes, J.C., Bracmort, K.S., Burns, R.T., and Lazarus, W.F. “An Analysis of Energy Production Costs from Anaerobic Digestion Systems on U.S. Livestock Production Facilities.” Technical Note No. 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, October 2007.AMBIGUOUS (781821 citations)Google Scholar
Bishop, C., and Shumway, C.R. “The Economics of Dairy Anaerobic Digestion with Coproduct Marketing.” Review of Agricultural Economics 31,3(2009):394–410.10.1111/j.1467-9353.2009.01445.xGoogle Scholar
California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA). Air Resources Board, Agricultural Activities, Manure Management. Internet site: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/manuremgmt/manuremgmt.htm (Accessed May 5, 2011).Google Scholar
Chicago Climate Exchange. Chicago Climate Exchange Offset Project Protocol: Agricultural Methane Collection and Combustion. Internet site: https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/ccx/protocols/CCX_Protocol_Agricultural_Methane.pdf. Updated September 30, 2009.Google Scholar
Chicago Climate Exchange. CXX Carbon Financial Instrument Contracts Daily Report, Internet site: http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/market/data/summary.jsf (Accessed December 1, 2010).Google Scholar
Crenshaw, J. “What's a Digester Cost These Days?” Presented at the AgSTAR National Conference, Baltimore, MD, February 24-25, 2009.AMBIGUOUS (871133 citations)Google Scholar
Dairy Power Production Program. Methane Digester System Program Evaluation Report. A Report Prepared for California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research Program, 2006. Internet site: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-009/CEC-500-2009-009.PDF.Google Scholar
Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy. Rules, Regulations, and Policies for Renewable Energy. Internet site: http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/rrpre.cfm (Accessed June 7, 2010).Google Scholar
Demuynck, M., Nyns, E.-J., and Naveau, H. “A Review of the Effects of Anaerobic Digestion on Odour and on Disease Survival.” Composting of Agricultural and Other Wastes. Gasser, J.K.R., ed. London: Elsevier Applied Science, 1985.Google Scholar
Ghafoori, E., and Flynn, P. “Optimizing the Size of Anaerobic Digesters.” Transactions Of The American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 50,3(2007):1029–36.Google Scholar
Global Methane Initiative. Internet site: http://www.globalmethane.org/ (Accessed June 1, 2011).Google Scholar
Gloy, B.A. “The Potential Supply of Carbon Dioxide Offsets from Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Waste in the United States.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 33,1(2011):59–78.10.1093/aepp/ppq029Google Scholar
Gloy, B.A., and Dressier, J.B. “Financial Barriers to the Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion on U.S. Livestock Operations.” Agricultural Finance Review 70,2(2010):157–68.10.1108/00021461011064932Google Scholar
Huffstutter, P. “A Stink in Central California over Converting Cow Manure to Electricity,” Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2010.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing.” Climate Change 2007; The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H.L., eds. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Key, N., and Sneeringer, S. Climate Change Policy and the Adoption of Methane Digesters on Livestock Operations. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. 111. February 2011. Internet site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR111/.Google Scholar
Kramer, J. Agricultural Biogas Casebook—2004 Update. Internet site: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_Agricultural_Biogas_Casebook_2004_Update_102421_7.pdf (Accessed May 5, 2011).Google Scholar
Lazarus, W., and Rudstrom, M. “The Economics of Anaerobic Digester Operation on a Minnesota Dairy Farm.” Review of Agricultural Economics 29,2(2007):349–64.10.1111/j.1467-9353.2007.00347.xGoogle Scholar
Leuer, E., Hyde, J., and Richard, T. “Investing in Methane Digesters on Pennsylvania Dairy Farms: Implication of Scale Economies and Environmental Programs.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 37,2(2008):188–203.Google Scholar
Lusk, P. “Methane Recovery from Animal Manures: The Current Opportunities Casebook.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory ECG-8-17098-01, September 1998.AMBIGUOUS (470949 citations)Google Scholar
MacDonald, J.M., O'Donoghue, E., McBride, W., Nehring, R., Sandretto, C., and Mosheim, R. “Profits, Costs, and the Changing Structure of Dairy Farming.” Economic Research Report No. 47. Economic Research Service, September 2007.AMBIGUOUS (781821 citations)Google Scholar
Minnesota Department of Agriculture. “Opportunities, Constraints, and Research Needs for Co-digestion of Alternative Waste Streams with Livestock Manure in Minnesota.” Agricultural Resources Management and Development Division, November 23, 2005. Internet site: http://www.mnproject.org/pdf/CombinedWasteStreamsReport.pdf.AMGoogle Scholar
Mosheim, R., and Lovell, C.A. Knox “Scale Economies and Inefficiency of U.S. Dairy Farms.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91,3(2009):777–94.10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01269.xGoogle Scholar
Pain, B.F., Misselbrook, T.H., Clarkson, C.R., and Rees, Y.J. “Odour and Ammonia Emissions Following the Spreading of Anaerobically-Digested Pig Slurry on Grassland.” Biological Wastes 34(1990):259–6710.1016/0269-7483(90)90027-PGoogle Scholar
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Market Monitor Reports. Internet site: http://www.rggi.org/market/market_monitor (Accessed June 1, 2011).Google Scholar
Shephard, T., Gooch, P.E. Curt, Czymmek, K., and Karszes, J. Covers for Long-term Dairy Manure Storages, Part 2: Estimating your Farm's Annual Cost and Benefit. Internet site: http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/pdfs/pdFactSheetSC2PDv.pdf (Accessed December 1, 2010).Google Scholar
Stokes, J., Rajagopalan, R., and Stefanou, S. “Investment in a Methane Digester: An Application of Capital Budgeting and Real Options.” Review of Agricultural Economics 30,4(2008):664–76.10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.00439.xGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Energy. “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States.” July 2000. Internet site: ftp.//ftp.eia.doe.gov/environment/co2emiss00.pdf.AMBIGUOUS (529859 citations)Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Energy. States with Renewable Portfolio Standards. Internet site: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm#chart (Accessed June 3, 2009).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Energy. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) Retail Products. Internet site: http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/certificates.shtml?page=1 (Accessed June 1, 2011).Google Scholar
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Form EIA-826, Monthly Electric Sales and Revenue Report with State Distributions Report. Internet site: http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html (Accessed May 23, 2010a).Google Scholar
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Reference Case, Table A8: Electrical Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions, p. 125, 2010b. Internet site: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo10/index.html.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Managing Manure with Biogas Recovery Systems: Improved Performance at Competitive Costs. The Agstar Program. EPA-430-F-02-004. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Market Opportunities for Biogas Recovery Systems: A Guide to Indentifying Candidates for On-Farm and Centralized Systems. AgStar Program. EPA-430-8-06-004. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol Offset Project Methodology for Project Type: Managing Manure with Biogas Recovery Systems. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Version 1.3, August 2008.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress. June 23, 2009.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008. EPA 430-R-10-006. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 15, 2010a.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Helps Launch Global Methane Initiative to Cut Greenhouse Gases/Countries to fight climate change while developing clean energy and stronger economies.” 2010 News Release. Release date: October 1, 2010b.AMBIGUOUS (934511 citations)Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Anaerobic Digestion Capital Costs for Dairy Farms. May 2010. Internet site: http://www.epa.gov/agstar/documents/digester_cost_fs.pdf (Accessed December 5, 2010c).Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AgStar Program Projects: Operating Anaerobic Digester Projects. Internet site: http://www.epa.gov/agstar/projects/index.html (Accessed May 5, 2011).Google Scholar
Welsh, F., Schulte, D., Krocker, E., and Lapp, H. “The Effect of Anaerobic Digestion upon Swine Manure Odors.” Canadian Agricultural Engineering 19,2(1977):122–26.Google Scholar
Western Climate Initiative. Design for the WCI Regional Program. Internet site: http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/the-wci-cap-and-trade-program/program-design (Accessed May 3, 2010).Google Scholar
Wilkie, A.C., Riedesel, K.J., and Cubinski, K.R. “Anaerobic Digestion for Odor Control.” Nuisance Concerns in Animal Manure Management: Odors and Flies. Horn, H.H. Van, ed. Gainesville, FL: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, 1995.Google Scholar
Wright, P.E., and Perschke, S.P. “Anaerobic Digestion and Wetland Treatment Case Study: Comparing Two Manure Odor Control Systems for Dairy Farms.” Presented at the American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual International Meeting, Orlando, FL, 1998.AMBIGUOUS (470949 citations)Google Scholar