Energy Outputs and Financial Returns of On-Farm Biodigester Systems in the United States: A Case Study in Vermont

Qingbin Wang; Ethan Thompson; Laurel Valchuis; Robert Parsons

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Energy Outputs and Financial Returns of On-Farm Biodigester Systems in the United States: A Case Study in Vermont

Qingbin Wang, Ethan Thompson, Laurel Valchuis, Robert Parsons

Published in International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy (Volume 6, Issue 2)

Received: 20 February 2017 Accepted: 14 March 2017 Published: 11 April 2017

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This study assesses the investments, energy outputs, and financial returns of on-farm anaerobic digester systems (ADS) by farm size through a case study in Vermont and discusses the potential policy implications. Detailed data on the initial investments, production of electricity and other marketable products, operational expenses, and income, collected through surveys of eight operating ADS on dairy farms in Vermont, are used to estimate the return on equity (ROE), return on assets (ROA), and other financial indicators for small, medium, and large farms. The primary survey data indicate that the average investment was $1.35 million for small and medium farms (75-500 cows) and $2.44 million for large farms (>500 cows). Financial analysis indicates that the ROE and ROA were 12.54% and 13.50% for large farms but only 0.73% and 1.07% for small and medium dairy farms, respectively. Whereas the technology of ADS developed in the United States seems to favor large farms in terms of both energy production and financial returns, the centralized ADS developed in Europe and low-cost mini digesters developed in China may have potentials for small and medium farms to develop more economically viable ADS in the United States.

Published in	International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy (Volume 6, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11
Page(s)	10-18
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2017. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Anaerobic Digester System, Renewable Energy, Dairy Farms, Economics, Vermont

References

[1]	Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets. (2015). Vermont Dairy: The Number of Dairy Farms in Vermont. Retrieved from http://www.vermontdairy.com/learn/number-of-farms/
[2]	MacDonald, J. M., O’Donoghue, E. J., McBride, W. D., Nehring, R. F., Sandretto, C. L., & Mosheim, R. (2007). Profits, Costs, and the Changing Structure of Dairy Farming (No. ERR-47). Economic Research Service / USDA.
[3]	Wang, Q., Thompson, E., Parsons, R., Rogers, G., & Dunn, D. (2011). Economic feasibility of converting cow manure to electricity: A case study of the CVPS Cow Power program in Vermont. Journal of Dairy Science, 94 (10), 4937–4949. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-4124.
[4]	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). AgSTAR Digesters. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/agstar/agstar-data-and-trends.
[5]	IEA Bioenergy. (2014). Economic Sustainability of Manure Based Centralised Co-Digestion. Retrieved from http://www.iea-biogas.net/files/daten-redaktion/download/publications/country-reports/november2013/Countryreport2013.pdf
[6]	Wang, Q., Thompson, E. (pending). Converting animal manure into energy products through on-farm biodigesters: A comparative analysis of the development in the U.S. and China.
[7]	Raker, M. (2011). CVPS Renewable Development Fund: Progress Report. CVPS Renewable Development Fund Executive Committee.
[8]	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). AgStar: Operating Anaerobic Digester Projects. Retrieved February 24, 2014, from http://www.epa.gov/agstar/projects/
[9]	Kearney, T. E., Larkin, M. J., & Levett, P. N. (1993). The effect of slurry storage and anaerobic digestion on survival of pathogenic bacteria. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 74 (1), 86–93.
[10]	Hogan, J. S., Smith, K. L., Hoblet, K. H., Todhunter, D. A., Schoenberger, P. S., Hueston, W. D., … Brockett, B. L. (1989). Bacterial counts in bedding materials used on nine commercial dairies. Journal of Dairy Science, 72 (1), 250–258.
[11]	Rendos, J. J., Eberhart, R. J., & Kesler, E. M. (1975). Microbial populations of teat ends of dairy cows, and bedding materials. Journal of Dairy Science, 58 (10), 1492–1500.
[12]	Noordhuizen, J., & Metz, J. H. M. (2005). Quality control on dairy farms with emphasis on public health, food safety, animal health and welfare. Livestock Production Science, 94 (1), 51–59.
[13]	Nicholson, F. A., Groves, S. J., & Chambers, B. J. (2005). Pathogen survival during livestock manure storage and following land application. Bioresource Technology, 96 (2), 135–143. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.02.030.
[14]	Raizman, E. A., & Wells, S. l. (2003). The Distribution of Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis in the Environment and its Association with Infected Herds of Minnesota Dairy Farms. Retrieved from http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/108991
[15]	Sischo, W. M., Atwill, E. R., Lanyon, L. E., & George, J. (2000). Cryptosporidia on dairy farms and the role these farms may have in contaminating surface water supplies in the northeastern United States. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 43 (4), 253–267. doi: 10.1016/S0167-5877 (99)00107-5.
[16]	Gould, B. (2012). USDA Dairy - Number of Operations by Herd Size. Retrieved from http://future.aae.wisc.edu/usda_dairy/dairy_data/index/2
[17]	Penn State Extension. (2013). Farm-Based Anaerobic Digestion Practices in the United States — Biogas and Anaerobic Digestion. Retrieved from http://extension.psu.edu/energy/waste-to-energy/biogas/links/history-of-anaerobic-digestion/farm-based-anaerobic-digestion-practices-in-the-united-states
[18]	Thompson, E., Wang, Q., Li, M. (2013). Anaerobic digester systems (ADS) for multiple dairy farms: A GIS analysis for optimal site selection. Energy Policy, 61, 114-124. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.035.
[19]	Jansson, A., Hammer, M., Folke, C., & Costanza, R. (1994). Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach To Sustainability. Island Press.
[20]	Bond, T., & Templeton, M. R. (2011). History and future of domestic biogas plants in the developing world. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15, 347–354. doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2011.09.003.
[21]	Wilkie, A. C. (2005). Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure: Design and process considerations. Dairy Manure Management: Treatment, Handling, and Community Relations, 301–312.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Qingbin Wang, Ethan Thompson, Laurel Valchuis, Robert Parsons. (2017). Energy Outputs and Financial Returns of On-Farm Biodigester Systems in the United States: A Case Study in Vermont. International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy, 6(2), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Qingbin Wang; Ethan Thompson; Laurel Valchuis; Robert Parsons. Energy Outputs and Financial Returns of On-Farm Biodigester Systems in the United States: A Case Study in Vermont. Int. J. Sustain. Green Energy 2017, 6(2), 10-18. doi: 10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Qingbin Wang, Ethan Thompson, Laurel Valchuis, Robert Parsons. Energy Outputs and Financial Returns of On-Farm Biodigester Systems in the United States: A Case Study in Vermont. Int J Sustain Green Energy. 2017;6(2):10-18. doi: 10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11,
  author = {Qingbin Wang and Ethan Thompson and Laurel Valchuis and Robert Parsons},
  title = {Energy Outputs and Financial Returns of On-Farm Biodigester Systems in the United States: A Case Study in Vermont},
  journal = {International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy},
  volume = {6},
  number = {2},
  pages = {10-18},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijrse.20170602.11},
  abstract = {This study assesses the investments, energy outputs, and financial returns of on-farm anaerobic digester systems (ADS) by farm size through a case study in Vermont and discusses the potential policy implications. Detailed data on the initial investments, production of electricity and other marketable products, operational expenses, and income, collected through surveys of eight operating ADS on dairy farms in Vermont, are used to estimate the return on equity (ROE), return on assets (ROA), and other financial indicators for small, medium, and large farms. The primary survey data indicate that the average investment was $1.35 million for small and medium farms (75-500 cows) and $2.44 million for large farms (>500 cows). Financial analysis indicates that the ROE and ROA were 12.54% and 13.50% for large farms but only 0.73% and 1.07% for small and medium dairy farms, respectively. Whereas the technology of ADS developed in the United States seems to favor large farms in terms of both energy production and financial returns, the centralized ADS developed in Europe and low-cost mini digesters developed in China may have potentials for small and medium farms to develop more economically viable ADS in the United States.},
 year = {2017}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Energy Outputs and Financial Returns of On-Farm Biodigester Systems in the United States: A Case Study in Vermont
AU  - Qingbin Wang
AU  - Ethan Thompson
AU  - Laurel Valchuis
AU  - Robert Parsons
Y1  - 2017/04/11
PY  - 2017
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11
T2  - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy
JF  - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy
JO  - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy
SP  - 10
EP  - 18
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1549
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11
AB  - This study assesses the investments, energy outputs, and financial returns of on-farm anaerobic digester systems (ADS) by farm size through a case study in Vermont and discusses the potential policy implications. Detailed data on the initial investments, production of electricity and other marketable products, operational expenses, and income, collected through surveys of eight operating ADS on dairy farms in Vermont, are used to estimate the return on equity (ROE), return on assets (ROA), and other financial indicators for small, medium, and large farms. The primary survey data indicate that the average investment was $1.35 million for small and medium farms (75-500 cows) and $2.44 million for large farms (>500 cows). Financial analysis indicates that the ROE and ROA were 12.54% and 13.50% for large farms but only 0.73% and 1.07% for small and medium dairy farms, respectively. Whereas the technology of ADS developed in the United States seems to favor large farms in terms of both energy production and financial returns, the centralized ADS developed in Europe and low-cost mini digesters developed in China may have potentials for small and medium farms to develop more economically viable ADS in the United States.
VL  - 6
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Qingbin Wang

Department of Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, USA
Ethan Thompson

Department of Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, USA
Laurel Valchuis

Department of Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, USA
Robert Parsons

Department of Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, USA

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Qingbin Wang, Ethan Thompson, Laurel Valchuis, Robert Parsons. (2017). Energy Outputs and Financial Returns of On-Farm Biodigester Systems in the United States: A Case Study in Vermont. International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy, 6(2), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Qingbin Wang; Ethan Thompson; Laurel Valchuis; Robert Parsons. Energy Outputs and Financial Returns of On-Farm Biodigester Systems in the United States: A Case Study in Vermont. Int. J. Sustain. Green Energy 2017, 6(2), 10-18. doi: 10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Qingbin Wang, Ethan Thompson, Laurel Valchuis, Robert Parsons. Energy Outputs and Financial Returns of On-Farm Biodigester Systems in the United States: A Case Study in Vermont. Int J Sustain Green Energy. 2017;6(2):10-18. doi: 10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11,
  author = {Qingbin Wang and Ethan Thompson and Laurel Valchuis and Robert Parsons},
  title = {Energy Outputs and Financial Returns of On-Farm Biodigester Systems in the United States: A Case Study in Vermont},
  journal = {International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy},
  volume = {6},
  number = {2},
  pages = {10-18},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijrse.20170602.11},
  abstract = {This study assesses the investments, energy outputs, and financial returns of on-farm anaerobic digester systems (ADS) by farm size through a case study in Vermont and discusses the potential policy implications. Detailed data on the initial investments, production of electricity and other marketable products, operational expenses, and income, collected through surveys of eight operating ADS on dairy farms in Vermont, are used to estimate the return on equity (ROE), return on assets (ROA), and other financial indicators for small, medium, and large farms. The primary survey data indicate that the average investment was $1.35 million for small and medium farms (75-500 cows) and $2.44 million for large farms (>500 cows). Financial analysis indicates that the ROE and ROA were 12.54% and 13.50% for large farms but only 0.73% and 1.07% for small and medium dairy farms, respectively. Whereas the technology of ADS developed in the United States seems to favor large farms in terms of both energy production and financial returns, the centralized ADS developed in Europe and low-cost mini digesters developed in China may have potentials for small and medium farms to develop more economically viable ADS in the United States.},
 year = {2017}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Energy Outputs and Financial Returns of On-Farm Biodigester Systems in the United States: A Case Study in Vermont
AU  - Qingbin Wang
AU  - Ethan Thompson
AU  - Laurel Valchuis
AU  - Robert Parsons
Y1  - 2017/04/11
PY  - 2017
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11
T2  - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy
JF  - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy
JO  - International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy
SP  - 10
EP  - 18
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1549
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijrse.20170602.11
AB  - This study assesses the investments, energy outputs, and financial returns of on-farm anaerobic digester systems (ADS) by farm size through a case study in Vermont and discusses the potential policy implications. Detailed data on the initial investments, production of electricity and other marketable products, operational expenses, and income, collected through surveys of eight operating ADS on dairy farms in Vermont, are used to estimate the return on equity (ROE), return on assets (ROA), and other financial indicators for small, medium, and large farms. The primary survey data indicate that the average investment was $1.35 million for small and medium farms (75-500 cows) and $2.44 million for large farms (>500 cows). Financial analysis indicates that the ROE and ROA were 12.54% and 13.50% for large farms but only 0.73% and 1.07% for small and medium dairy farms, respectively. Whereas the technology of ADS developed in the United States seems to favor large farms in terms of both energy production and financial returns, the centralized ADS developed in Europe and low-cost mini digesters developed in China may have potentials for small and medium farms to develop more economically viable ADS in the United States.
VL  - 6
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download