Comparing the social costs of biofuels and fossil fuels: A case study of Vietnam

被引:16
作者
Le, Loan T. [1 ]
van Ierland, Ekko C. [1 ]
Zhu, Xueqin [1 ]
Wesseler, Justus [2 ]
Ngo, Giang [3 ]
机构
[1] Wageningen Univ, Environm Econ & Nat Resources Grp, NL-6706 KN Wageningen, Netherlands
[2] Tech Univ Munich, Agr & Food Econ Grp, D-85354 Freising Weihenstephan, Germany
[3] Minist Ind & Trade, Res Inst Oil & Oil Plants, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
关键词
Cassava-based ethanol; Jatropha-based biodiesel; Fossil fuels; Social cost; Cost-effectiveness; Vietnam; PERFORMANCE; EMISSIONS; BIODIESEL; ENERGY; COMBUSTION; BLENDS;
D O I
10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.04.004
中图分类号
S2 [农业工程];
学科分类号
0828 ;
摘要
Biofuel substitution for fossil fuels has been recommended in the literature and promoted in many countries; however, there are concerns about its economic viability. In this paper we focus on the cost-effectiveness of fuels, i.e., we compare the social costs of biofuels and fossil fuels for a functional unit defined as 1 km of vehicle transportation. We base our empirical results on a case study in Vietnam and compare two biofuels and their alternative fossil fuels: ethanol and gasoline, and biodiesel and diesel with a focus on the blends of E5 and E10 for ethanol, and B5 and B10 for biodiesel. At the discount rate of 4%, ethanol substitution for gasoline in form of E5 or E10 saves 33% of the social cost of gasoline if the fuel consumption of E5 and E10 is the same as gasoline. The ethanol substitution will be cost-effective if the fuel consumption of E5 and E10, in terms of L km(-1), is not exceeding the consumption of gasoline by more than 1.7% and 3.5% for E5 and E10 respectively. The biodiesel substitution would be cost-effective if the fuel consumption of B5 and B10, in terms of L km(-1) compared to diesel, would decrease by more than 1.4% and 2.8% for BE and B10 respectively at the discount rate of 4%. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:227 / 238
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles
    Ekener-Petersen, Elisabeth
    Hoglund, Jonas
    Finnveden, Goran
    ENERGY POLICY, 2014, 73 : 416 - 426
  • [2] Microalgal and Terrestrial Transport Biofuels to Displace Fossil Fuels
    Reijnders, Lucas
    ENERGIES, 2009, 2 (01): : 48 - 56
  • [3] Modelling production cost scenarios for biofuels and fossil fuels in Europe
    Festel, Gunter
    Wuermseher, Martin
    Rammer, Christian
    Boles, Eckhard
    Bellof, Martin
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2014, 66 : 242 - 253
  • [4] Adiabatic flame temperature from biofuels and fossil fuels and derived effect on NOx emissions
    Glaude, Pierre-Alexandre
    Fournet, Rene
    Bounaceur, Roda
    Moliere, Michel
    FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY, 2010, 91 (02) : 229 - 235
  • [5] The substitutive effect of biofuels on fossil fuels in the lower and higher crude oil price periods
    Chang, Ting-Huan
    Su, Hsin-Mei
    ENERGY, 2010, 35 (07) : 2807 - 2813
  • [6] Air Pollutants from the Burning of Fossil Fuels and Biofuels: A Brief Review
    Guarieiro, Lilian L. N.
    Vasconcellos, Perola C.
    Solci, Maria Cristina
    REVISTA VIRTUAL DE QUIMICA, 2011, 3 (05) : 434 - 445
  • [7] Assessing environmental benefits of the transition from standard fossil fuels to liquefied natural gas: The Sardinia Region case study
    Borelli, Davide
    Devia, Francesco
    Schenone, Corrado
    Silenzi, Federico
    Sollai, Federico
    Tagliafico, Luca A.
    ENERGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, 2023, 73 : 205 - 217
  • [8] Fossil mentalities: How fossil fuels have shaped social imaginaries
    Schmelzer, Matthias
    Buettner, Melissa
    GEOFORUM, 2024, 150
  • [9] Cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions: Reducing fuel consumption or replacing fossil fuels with biofuels
    Nordin, Ida
    Elofsson, Katarina
    Jansson, Torbjorn
    ENERGY POLICY, 2024, 190
  • [10] Economic feasibility and long-term sustainability criteria on the path to enable a transition from fossil fuels to biofuels
    Perin, Giorgio
    Jones, Patrik R.
    CURRENT OPINION IN BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2019, 57 : 175 - 182