Assessing external factors on substitution of fossil fuel by biofuels: model perspective from the Nordic region

  • Tahamina KhanamEmail author
  • Jukka Matero
  • Blas Mola-Yudego
  • Lauri Sikanen
  • Abul Rahman
Original Article


The aim of this study is to develop a theoretical model by which to demonstrate how taxes and subsidies work as external factors to substitute fossil fuel by a forest-based biofuel. For biofuels, this study predominantly considers solid-form biomass that generates electricity; for fossil fuels, it considers coal. The model results explicated with three states by using various numeric values taken from the literature. Three states are as follows: a situation without a tax and subsidy, a situation with a biofuel subsidy, and a situation with a biofuel subsidy and a fossil fuel tax. The results of the first state exemplify current fuel market situation; those of the second indicate that the aggregate demand for biofuel has shifted upwards by around 15 % and that substitution has increased by around 18 % due to biofuel subsidies being offered. Under the third state, aggregate biofuel demand has shifted upwards by around 19 %, reduced the demand for fossil fuels by around 13 %, and increased substitution by around 31 %. This state relates to a greater sense of social welfare than other two states. It is conceivable that the joint application of taxes and subsidies will succour biofuel to supplant fossil fuel in the near future.


Forest-based biofuel Substitution model Fossil fuel Tax Subsidy 



The author would like to thank CIMO Foundation for providing financial support for preparing this paper.


  1. Chang T-H, Su H-M (2010) The substitutive effect of biofuels on fossil fuels in the lower and higher crude oil price periods. Energy 35(7):2807–2813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen X, Khanna M, Yeh S (2012) Stimulating learning-by-doing in advanced biofuels: effectiveness of alternative policies. Environ Res Lett 7(4):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dixit A (1979) A model of duopoly suggesting a theory of entry barriers. Bell J Econ 10(1):20–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. EC (European Commission) (2006) Biofuels in the European Union, a vision for 2030 and beyond. Final report of the biofuels research advisory council. Retrieved from: (March 13, 2012)
  5. EEA (European Environment Agency) (2008) External costs of electricity production. Retrieved from: (February 05, 2012)
  6. EMV (Energia Markkina Virasto) (2012) Retrieved from: (April 21, 2012)
  7. Energiakatsaus (2012) Ministry of employment and the economy. Retrieved from: (May 19, 2012)
  8. EIA (Energy Information Administration) (2008) Coal news and markets. Retrieved from: (May 13, 2014)
  9. Energymyndigheten (2010) Prisblad för biobränslen, torv m.m. Nr 1. Retrieved from: (October 14, 2012)
  10. Eurostat (2003) Energy taxes in the nordic countries—does the polluter pay? National statistical offices in Norway, Sweden, Finland & Denmark.Final report. Retrieved from: (April 02, 2012)
  11. Favero A, Mendelsohn R (2014) Using markets for woody biomass energy to sequester carbon in forests. Retrieved from: (May 13, 2014)
  12. Forsström J, Pingoud K, Pohjola J, Vilén T, Valsta L, Verkerk H (2012) Wood-based biodiesel in Finland: market-mediated impacts on emissions and costs. VTT Technology 7: 1–48. Retrieved from: (August 13, 2012)
  13. Gaudreault C, Miner R (2013) Greenhouse gas and fossil fuel reduction benefits of using biomass manufacturing residuals for energy production in forest products facilities. National council for air and stream improvement, IncGoogle Scholar
  14. Grafton QR, Kompas T, Van Long N (2012) Substitution between biofuels and fossil fuels: is there a green paradox? J Environ Econ Manag 64(3):328–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gustavsson L, Madlener R, Hoen H-F, Jungmeier G, Karjalainen T, Klöhn S, Mahapatra K, Pohjola J, Solberg B, Spelter H (2006) The role of wood material for greenhouse gas mitigation. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 11:1097–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Häckner J (2000) A note on price and quantity competition in differentiated oligopolies. J Econ Theory 93:233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall DO, Mynick HE, Williams RH (1991) Carbon sequestration versus fossil fuel substitution: alternative roles for biomass in coping with greenhouse warming. In: White JC (ed) Global climate change the economic costs of mitigation and adaptation. Elsevier Science Publishing Co. Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Holmgren K, Olsson M (2008) Biomass fuels not entirely climate-neutral—but better than fossil fuels. In: Johansson B (ed) Bioenergy—for what and how much? Forskningsrådet Formas, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  19. IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) (2008) Retrieved from: (April 17, 2012)
  20. Ji Q, Fan Y (2012) How does oil price volatility affect non-energy commodity markets? Appl Energy 89:273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johansson B, Börjesson P, Ericsson K, Nilsson LJ, Svenningsson P (2002) The use of biomass for energy in Sweden—critical factors and lessons learned. Report 35. Environmental and energy systems studies, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Retrieved from: (November 27, 2013)
  22. Larsson S, Rosenqvist H (1996) Willow production in Sweden—politics, cropping development and economy. Presented at the European Energy Crops Conference, Enschede, the Netherlands, 30 September–1 October 1996Google Scholar
  23. Liang J (2012) Competition between fixed and mobile broadband access based on mobility and data volume. Int J Manag Netw Econ 2(3):217–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Löfgren Å (2008) Energy systems of the future—the importance of choosing the right regulatory instrument. In: Johansson B(ed) Bioenergy—for what and how much? Forskningsrådet Formas, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  25. Manuilova A, Johnston M (2011) Greenhouse gas emissions assessment T He substitution of fossil fuels with woody biomass in the Northwest Territories. Climate Change Specialist Environment Division Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources. Retrieved from: (May 12, 2014)
  26. Mola-Yudego B, Pelkonen P (2008) The effects of policy incentives in the adoption of willow short rotation coppice for bioenergy in Sweden. Energ Policy 36(8):3062–3068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nicola PC (2013) Efficiency and equity in welfare economics. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  28. Nordh NE (2005) Long term changes in stand structure and biomass production in short rotation willow coppice. Doctoral thesis. Faculty of natural resources and agricultural sciences. SLU, Uppsala, Sweden Retrieved from: (May 10, 2014)
  29. Owen AD (2004) Environmental externalities, market distortions and the economics of renewable energy technologies. Energy J 25(3):127–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pelletsatlas (2009a) Development and promotion of a transparent European pellets market. Pellet market country report Denmark. Retrieved from: (May 12, 2012)
  31. Pelletsatlas (2009b) Development and promotion of a transparent European pellets market creation of a European real-time Pellets Atlas. Preliminary pellet market country report Sweden. Retrieved from: (May 21, 2012)
  32. Pelletsatlas (2012) Retrieved from: (June 22, 2012)
  33. Power scorecard (2007) Electricity and the environment. Retrieved from: (May 12, 2014)
  34. Rosenqvist H (2008) Energy crops on arable land—who will grow them? In: Johansson B (ed) Bioenergy—for what and how much? Forskningsrådet Formas, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenqvist H, Roos A, Ling E, Hektor B (2000) Willow growers in Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 18:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sassner P, Galbe M, Zacchi G (2008) Techno-economic evaluation of bioethanol production from three different lignocellulosic materials. Biomass Bioenergy 32(5):422–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sedjo RA (2013) Comparative life cycle assessments: carbon neutrality and wood biomass energy. Discussion paper-resources for the future (RFF), no. 13–11. Retrieved from: (May 12, 2014)
  38. Shubik M, Levitan R (1980) Market structure and behavior, 19th Dewey edn. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Singh N, Vives X (1984) Price and quantity competition in a differentiated duopoly. RAND J Econ 15(4):546–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sinn H-W (2008) Public policies against global warming: a supply-side approach. Int Tax Public Financ 15(4):360–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sinn H-W (2012) The Green Paradox: a supply-side approach to global warming. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Snäkin J-PA (2000) An engineering model for heating energy and emission assessment—the case of North Karelia, Finland. Appl Energy 67:353–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Speck S, Skou AM, Nielsen HO, Ryelund A, Smith C (2006) The use of economic instruments in Nordic and Baltic environmental policy 2001–2005, Tema Nord 2006:525, Nordic Council of Ministers, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  44. Timilsina GR, Csordás S, Mevel S (2011) When does a carbon tax on fossil fuels stimulate biofuels? Ecol Econ 70:2400–2415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Watkiss P, Downing T, Handley C, Butterfield R (2005) The impacts and costs of climate change. Final report to DG environment. September 2005Google Scholar
  46. Wier M, Birr-Pedersen K, Jacobsen HK, Klok J (2005) Are CO2 taxes regressive? Evidence from the Danish experience. Ecol Econ 52:239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tahamina Khanam
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jukka Matero
    • 1
  • Blas Mola-Yudego
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lauri Sikanen
    • 3
  • Abul Rahman
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Forest SciencesUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland
  2. 2.Department of Crop Production EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.The Finnish Forest Research InstituteJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations