Accounting for the Environmental Externality

Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


Renewable Energy programs are often sought to be justified on the basis of the private benefits and costs accruing to the individual households, in terms of providing improved lighting, superior cooking fuel, improved indoor air quality and the like. Benchmarking electric power or other services against their respective closest substitutes, namely power from coal fired plants or services provided by burning fossil fuels is incomplete if the differences in environmental impact are not taken into account. This chapter discusses the positive environmental externality accruing from domestic RE programs, to demonstrate that economic surpluses from domestic programs are realized beyond narrowly defined project boundaries. Employing biogas programs to illustrate, it is shown that the economic value addition from the consumptive use of the biogas for cooking, and the non-consumptive and indirect value derived from the biogas plant, viz., providing feedstock for other processes and other such benefits as greenhouse gas mitigation (positive externalities) need to be accounted for. The process approach adopted herein enables an integrated view of the value chain and consequently, a mechanism to reallocate costs and to distribute such surpluses.


Biogas Plant Positive Externality Private Benefit Cooking Fuel Microfinance Institution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Allen BP, Loomis JB (2006) Deriving values for the ecological support function of wildlife: an indirect valuation approach. Ecol Econ 56:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axaopoulos P, Panagakis P (2003) Energy and economic analysis of biogas heated livestock buildings. Biomass and Bioenergy 24(3):239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bala BK, Hossain MM (1992) Economics of biogas digesters in Bangladesh. Energy 17(10):939–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balasubramanian PR, Kasturi BR (1994) Biogas-plant effluent as an organic fertilizer in fish polyculture. Bioresour Technol 50(3):189–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Batzias FA, Sidiras DK, Spyrou EK (2005) Evaluating livestock manures for biogas production: a GIS based method. Renew Energy 30(8):1161–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berglund M, Borjesson P (2006) Assessment of energy performance in the life-cycle of biogas production. Biomass and Bioenergy 30(3):254–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brennan TJ (2006) Green preferences as regulatory policy instrument. Ecol Econ 56:144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke GRG, Wallsten SJ (2003) Universal service: empirical evidence on the provision of infrastructure services to rural and poor urban consumers. In: Brook PJ, Irwin TC (eds) Infrastructure for poor people. The World Bank, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cummings CH (2006) Ripe for change: agriculture’s tipping point. World Watch Magazine, July/August 2006, World Watch Institute.
  10. 10.
    Dang HH, Michaelowa A, Tuan DD (2003) Synergy of adaptation and mitigation strategies in the context of sustainable development: the case of Vietnam. Climate Policy 3(Suppl 1):S81–S96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DTRDC (2003) Organic tea cultivation. The Darjeeling Tea Research and Development Center, Government of India.
  12. 12.
    Economist (2006) Power to the people. The Economist, 9 Mar 2006Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghosh N (2004) Reducing dependence on chemical fertilizers and its financial implications for farmers in India. Ecol Econ 49(2):149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gurung JB (1997) Review of literature on effect of slurry use on crop production. Biogas Support Program, Nepal, June 1997Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hilton FG (2006) Poverty and pollution abatement: evidence from lead phase-out. Ecol Econ 56:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lichtman R (1987) Toward the diffusion of rural energy technologies: some lessons from the Indian biogas program. World Development 15(3):347–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malhotra P, Neudoerffer CR, Dutta S (2004) A participatory process for designing cooking energy programmes with women. Biomass and Bioenergy 26(2):147–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mills A, Shillcutt S (2004) Communicable diseases: summary of Copenhagen consensus challenge paper. May 2004.
  19. 19.
    Namasivayam C, Yamuna RT (1995) Waste biogas residual slurry as an adsorbent for the removal of Pb(II) from aqueous solution and radiator manufacturing industry wastewater. Bioresour Technol 52:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pehnt M (2006) Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renewable Energy 31:55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shi T, Gill R (2005) Developing effective policies for the sustainable development of ecological agriculture in China: the case study of jinshan county with a systems dynamics model. Ecol Econ 53(2):223–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tampier M (2006) Distributed energy utilities—it is all about financing, renewable energy access, 22 May 2006,
  23. 23.
    Tripathi SD, Karma B (2001) Biogas slurry in fish culture. In: Integrated agriculture–aquaculture: a primer, Fisheries Technical paper no. 407, Food and Agriculture OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Groenendaal WJH (1995) Assessing demand when introducing a new fuel: natural gas on Java. Energy Econ 17(2):147–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Verdurous Solutions Private LimitedKuvempunagar, MysoreIndia

Personalised recommendations