IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v15y2011i2p1217-1227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Barriers to and drivers for UK bioenergy development

Author

Listed:
  • Adams, P.W.
  • Hammond, G.P.
  • McManus, M.C.
  • Mezzullo, W.G.

Abstract

Barriers to UK bioenergy development arise from a number of technical, financial, social and other constraints. Likewise, the drivers for using bioenergy are numerous and diverse. A range of these barriers and drivers have been identified through a comprehensive literature and case study review, and then assessed through an online questionnaire, completed by stakeholders from across the UK bioenergy industry: farmers/suppliers, developers/owners of bioenergy projects, primary end-users, and government/policy stakeholders. The results are presented in the form of 'spider web' diagrams. The most critical barriers and drivers relate to economic factors of bioenergy projects. Farmers/suppliers and developers are influenced by production costs and benefits, whilst primary end-users of bioenergy are concerned mainly with the cost of purchasing energy resources. Common drivers for all stakeholders were found to be reducing carbon emissions and the dependency on fossil fuels. In order to satisfy the needs of stakeholders schemes must be both economically attractive and environmentally sustainable for projects to be successful.

Suggested Citation

  • Adams, P.W. & Hammond, G.P. & McManus, M.C. & Mezzullo, W.G., 2011. "Barriers to and drivers for UK bioenergy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 1217-1227, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:15:y:2011:i:2:p:1217-1227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364-0321(10)00326-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sherrington, Chris & Bartley, Justin & Moran, Dominic, 2008. "Farm-level constraints on the domestic supply of perennial energy crops in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 2504-2512, July.
    2. Hammond, G.P. & Kallu, S. & McManus, M.C., 2008. "Development of biofuels for the UK automotive market," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 85(6), pages 506-515, June.
    3. Upham, Paul & Shackley, Simon, 2006. "The case of a proposed 21.5 MWe biomass gasifier in Winkleigh, Devon: Implications for governance of renewable energy planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(15), pages 2161-2172, October.
    4. van der Horst, Dan, 2007. "NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2705-2714, May.
    5. Piterou, Athena & Shackley, Simon & Upham, Paul, 2008. "Project ARBRE: Lessons for bio-energy developers and policy-makers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2044-2050, June.
    6. Upreti, Bishnu Raj, 2004. "Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 785-800, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adams, P.W.R. & Lindegaard, K., 2016. "A critical appraisal of the effectiveness of UK perennial energy crops policy since 1990," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 188-202.
    2. Rogers, J.C. & Simmons, E.A. & Convery, I. & Weatherall, A., 2008. "Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4217-4226, November.
    3. Soland, Martin & Steimer, Nora & Walter, Götz, 2013. "Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 802-810.
    4. Schumacher, K. & Krones, F. & McKenna, R. & Schultmann, F., 2019. "Public acceptance of renewable energies and energy autonomy: A comparative study in the French, German and Swiss Upper Rhine region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 315-332.
    5. Narwane, Vaibhav S. & Yadav, Vinay Surendra & Raut, Rakesh D. & Narkhede, Balkrishna E. & Gardas, Bhaskar B., 2021. "Sustainable development challenges of the biofuel industry in India based on integrated MCDM approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 298-309.
    6. Krekel, Christian & Rechlitz, Julia & Rode, Johannes & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2020. "Quantifying the Externalities of Renewable Energy Plants Using Wellbeing Data: The Case of Biogas," IZA Discussion Papers 13959, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Martin, Nigel & Rice, John, 2015. "Improving Australia's renewable energy project policy and planning: A multiple stakeholder analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 128-141.
    8. Ge, Jiaqi & Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Polhill, J. Gary & Matthews, Keith & Miller, Dave & Wardell-Johnson, Douglas, 2017. "Exploring factors affecting on-farm renewable energy adoption in Scotland using large-scale microdata," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 548-560.
    9. Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Pratibha Rani & Fausto Cavallaro & Ibrahim M. Hezam, 2023. "An IVIF-Distance Measure and Relative Closeness Coefficient-Based Model for Assessing the Sustainable Development Barriers to Biofuel Enterprises in India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, February.
    10. Upham, Paul, 2009. "Applying environmental-behaviour concepts to renewable energy siting controversy: Reflections on a longitudinal bioenergy case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4273-4283, November.
    11. Carneiro, Patrícia & Ferreira, Paula, 2012. "The economic, environmental and strategic value of biomass," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 17-22.
    12. Bertsch, Valentin & Hyland, Marie & Mahony, Michael, 2017. "What drives people's opinions of electricity infrastructure? Empirical evidence from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 472-497.
    13. Eswarlal, Vimal Kumar & Vasudevan, Geoffrey & Dey, Prasanta Kumar & Vasudevan, Padma, 2014. "Role of community acceptance in sustainable bioenergy projects in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 333-343.
    14. Mirosława Witkowska-Dabrowska & Natalia Świdyńska & Agnieszka Napiórkowska-Baryła, 2021. "Attitudes of Communities in Rural Areas towards the Development of Wind Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-24, December.
    15. Piterou, Athena & Shackley, Simon & Upham, Paul, 2008. "Project ARBRE: Lessons for bio-energy developers and policy-makers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2044-2050, June.
    16. Wright, Daniel G. & Dey, Prasanta K. & Brammer, John, 2014. "A barrier and techno-economic analysis of small-scale bCHP (biomass combined heat and power) schemes in the UK," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 332-345.
    17. Glithero, N.J. & Ramsden, S.J. & Wilson, P., 2013. "Barriers and incentives to the production of bioethanol from cereal straw: A farm business perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 161-171.
    18. Upham, Paul & Shackley, Simon & Waterman, Holly, 2007. "Public and stakeholder perceptions of 2030 bioenergy scenarios for the Yorkshire and Humber region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 4403-4412, September.
    19. McLachlan, Carly, 2009. "'You don't do a chemistry experiment in your best china': Symbolic interpretations of place and technology in a wave energy case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5342-5350, December.
    20. Glithero, Neryssa J. & Wilson, Paul & Ramsden, Stephen J., 2013. "Prospects for arable farm uptake of Short Rotation Coppice willow and miscanthus in England," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 209-218.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:15:y:2011:i:2:p:1217-1227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.