Assessing Community Support and Feasibility for Bioenergy in the Northern Rivers
Region
Erlebacher, Rachel
Academic Director: Brennan, Peter
Project Advisor: Shields, Katrina
Cornell University
Environmental Science and Sustainability
Australia, Alstonville
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Australia: Sustainability and
Environmental Action, SIT Study Abroad, Spring 2015
ISP Ethics Review
(Note: Each AD must complete, sign, and submit this form for every student’s ISP.)
The ISP paper by _____Rachel Erlebacher______________________ (student) does/does
not* conform to the Human Subjects Review approval from the Local Review Board, the
ethical standards of the local community, and the ethical and academic standards outlined in
the SIT student and faculty handbooks.
*This paper does not conform to standards for the following reasons:
Completed by: Peter Brennan
Academic Director:
Peter Brennan
Signature:
Program: Australia: Sustainability and Environmental Action
Date: 15/5/2015
ii
Abstract:
As climate change becomes more apparent and worsens, it is important to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Australia’s reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas,
still remains high. With a goal to switch to 20% renewable energy by 2020, Australia has a
vested interest to develop multiple forms of renewable energy, including bioenergy. Potential
feedstocks include agricultural waste, municipal green waste, timber and forestry waste, and
energy crops. Energy can be extracted from these feedstocks through anaerobic digestion,
combustion, or pyrolysis. Bioenergy has many potential benefits, including reduced
emissions, landfill diversion, and local job opportunities. The Northern Rivers Region is an
ideal area to explore bioenergy because it has a large agricultural sector, and therefore
available feedstocks. However, a social license needs to be established through community
engagement to determine if the industry should be established in the first place.
This study sought to assess the current perceptions and awareness of bioenergy in the
Northern Rivers Region from both experts in the field and the general community. I
completed a technical questionnaire and collected samples for testing at Nimbin Valley Dairy
as they move to the investment phase of installing an anaerobic digester. I conducted 24
interviews with key stakeholders that have knowledge of bioenergy in the region; I also
distributed an online survey to community members to determine what the general public
currently knows about bioenergy. The survey was sent to approximately 550 people and 78
people completed it, with an estimated 14% response rate. I used qualitative and quantitative
analysis to synthesize all of the responses and make recommendations for how to proceed.
My findings suggest that there is low awareness amongst community members about
bioenergy, and there are many unknowns about the availability of the feedstocks in the
region. An extensive feasibility report must be conducted to answer these unknowns. An
educational campaign should be launched to demystify bioenergy and specify exactly how
the industry will look in the Region. Comments made by participants indicate that the
community needs to understand specifically what feedstocks and technologies would be used.
A focus group should be created, comprised of a variety of stakeholders, to develop a
proposal of how the industry will be developed. Once these studies and campaigns are
completed, the Region can proceed with a social license and conduct an assessment of
community perceptions to determine if the community would accept the proposal.
Key Words:
Social License, Bioenergy, Scoping Study, Community Engagement
i
Acknowledgements:
I would like to first thank Katrina Shields, my resourceful and helpful advisor. She
provided support when I needed it, contact names for my project, and advice on my project as
we developed it together. Most importantly, thank you for providing and setting me up with
my organization contact, Paul Cruickshank.
Secondly, I would like to thank Paul Cruickshank, Sustain Northern Rivers and the
Office of Environment and Heritage NSW for hosting me during the ISP period and working
with me to develop such a rewarding project. Paul provided advice, resources, office space,
transportation, and a welcoming presence as I collected my research. He supplied the contact
names for my interviews and the databases for my survey. This project would not have been
possible without him.
Thank you to all of the North Coast Energy Forum members, including Mark Byrne,
Sandi Middleton, Debbie Firestone, and Craig Jenkins, that assisted me in identifying
additional contacts for my interviews. It is with their help that I was able to reach out to so
many people. Additionally, they reviewed my survey and interview questions and provided
valuable feedback.
My data would not exist without the 24 people that agreed to be interviewed. Thank
you to all of my interviewees (complete list located in Appendix C) for participating in my
study and contributing valuable knowledge and expertise. Furthermore, some provided
additional contacts and academic articles to complement my research.
Thank you to Natalie Meyer of the Nimbin Neighbourhood and Information Centre,
who was my organization contact for the other part of my study in Nimbin. She also provided
transportation, office space, and vast knowledge to help me succeed in my ISP.
I would like to thank Coral Schwertner and the rest of her family, and Michaela
Vincent for so graciously opening their homes to me. Coral and Michaela provided a
welcoming home away from home and have made my stay in Australia so much more
enjoyable.
Thank you to Dr. Shorna Allred, my academic advisor at Cornell University, for
supporting me and providing guidance on how to bring my ISP research back to Cornell to be
used as my senior thesis.
Lastly, I would like to thank my academic director, Peter Brennan and the rest of the
SIT staff, including Laura Brennan, Eshana Bragg, and Dave Brown for organizing such an
incredible study abroad program. They have provided support, guidance, valuable
educational experiences, and so much more. This program has been incredible.
ii
Table of Contents:
1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………
1.1 The Necessity to Change ……………………………………………………………………
1.2 Bioenergy in Australia ………………………………………………………………………
1.2.1 Feedstock Options and Methods of Extraction …………………………………………
1.2.2 Benefits of Bioenergy …………………………………………………………………
1.3 The Northern Rivers Region ………………………………………………………………
1.3.1 Current Examples in NSW ……………………………………………………………
1.4 Social Licenses ……………………………………………………………………………
1.4.1 Why are they important? ……………………………………………………………….
1.4.2 Current Perceptions ……………………………………………………………………
1.5 Study Goals and Justification ………………………………………………………………
2. Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………
2.1 Overview ……………………………………………………………………………………
2.2 Ethical Considerations ……………………………………………………………………
2.3 Background Research ………………………………………………………………………
2.4 Nimbin Valley Dairy Pre-Feasibility Questionnaire ………………………………………
2.4.1 Analysis and Synthesis …………………………………………………………………
2.5 Assessing Current Perceptions in the Northern Rivers Region ……………………………
2.5.1 Creating Interview Questions …………………………………………………………
2.5.2 Contacting Potential Interviewees ……………………………………………………
2.5.3 Conducting Interviews …………………………………………………………………
2.5.4 Preparing the Survey ……………………………………………………………………
2.5.5 Distributing the Survey …………………………………………………………………
2.5.6 Compiling Interview Results ……………………………………………………………
2.5.7 Survey Analysis …………………………………………………………………………
2.6 Limitations and Constraints …………………………………………………………………
3. Results and Discussion …………………………………………………………………………
3.1 Feasibility of Anaerobic Digestion for Nimbin Valley Dairy: A Case Study ………………
3.1.1 Environmental Benefits- Powering the Farm …………………………………………
3.1.2 The Need to Grow ………………………………………………………………………
3.1.3 Complexities of Measuring Output ……………………………………………………
3.1.4 Next Steps and Future Implications ……………………………………………………
3.2 The Potential Bioenergy Industry …………………………………………………………
3.2.1 The Importance of Renewable Energy …………………………………………………
3.2.2 Current Community Perceptions ………………………………………………………
3.2.3 Benefits and Concerns …………………………………………………………………
3.2.4 Potential Feedstocks for the Region ……………………………………………………
3.2.5 Feasible Conversion Technologies ……………………………………………………
3.2.6 Appropriate Scale ………………………………………………………………………
3.3 Developing a Social License in the Northern Rivers Region ………………………………
3.3.1 Community Awareness …………………………………………………………………
3.3.2 Redefining Bioenergy …………………………………………………………………
3.3.3 What Constitutes a Social License? ……………………………………………………
3.3.4 Public Education ………………………………………………………………………
3.3.5 Government’s Role ……………………………………………………………………
3.3.6 Next Steps and Future Work ……………………………………………………………
4. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………
5. References ………………………………………………………………………………………
5.1 Social License Interviews …………………………………………………………………
Appendix A: Anonymous Online Survey …………………………………………………………
Appendix B: Script for Open-Ended Interview Questions ………………………………………
Appendix C: Interview Schedule …………………………………………………………………
Appendix D: Interview Raw Data …………………………………………………………………
1
1
1
1
3
4
5
5
6
8
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
14
14
15
15
17
17
17
18
18
19
19
19
20
21
24
29
30
32
32
33
33
35
36
36
38
40
42
44
48
50
51
iii
List of Figures and Tables:
Figure 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………
Figure 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………
Figure 3 ……………………………………………………………………………………
Figure 4 ……………………………………………………………………………………
Figure 5 ……………………………………………………………………………………
Figure 6 ……………………………………………………………………………………
2
3
7
20
24
32
Table 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………
Table 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………
29
32
Abbreviations:
NSW- New South Wales
CSG- Coal Seam Gas
ISP- Independent Study Project
SLO- Social License to Operate
NCEF- North Coast Energy Forum
OEH- Office of Environment and Heritage NSW
SNR- Sustain Northern Rivers
NNIC- Nimbin Neighbourhood and Information Centre
iv
1. Introduction
1.1 The Necessity to Change
Climate change has become an increasing threat as greenhouse gas emissions
continue to increase; CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm in the last 140
years (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 14). Evidence has already shown that these human induced
changes contribute to sea level rise, increased extreme weather, ocean acidification, and
increased glacial melt (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 9). Even if we cut all greenhouse gas emissions
today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) still predicts a 2.5° C increase
in temperature by 2100 (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 18).
In order to mitigate some of the predicted risks and prevent further warming, it is
imperative to reduce our emissions, particularly targeting the energy sector. Diesendorf notes
that the largest sources of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the electricity sector
using coal-based generation, and the transportation sector (2007, p. 1). Furthermore, he states
that Australia is the largest coal exporter and releases the highest number of greenhouse gases
per capita (2007, p. 3). Currently 73% of Australia’s electricity is generated by coal and
another 13% is generated by natural gas (Origin Energy, 2015). With a target set to reduce
CO2 emissions by 50% by 2040 (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 43) and a Renewable Energy Target to
switch to 20% renewable energy by 2020 (Hall, 2014, p. 222), Australia has a vested interest
to research and develop its renewable energy sector.
1.2 Bioenergy in Australia
While conventional renewable energy options, such as solar and wind, are viable and
growing in Australia, the use of bioenergy has the potential to supply a substantial portion to
the electricity market. Diesendorf defines bioenergy as “energy produced from biomass-…
material [that is] produced by photosynthesis or is an organic byproduct from a waste stream”
(2007, p. 128). Major feedstocks include agricultural-related wastes, energy crops, landfill
gas, sewage gas, sugarcane, municipal waste, and timber-related waste (Clean Energy
Council, 2008a, p. 19). Because the energy is produced from sources that serve as a carbon
sink, bioenergy, in theory, can be carbon neutral (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 129).
1.2.1 Feedstock Options and Methods of Extraction
Ison et al. explain that conversion from biomass to energy can be done in four major
methods: anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, combustion, and cogeneration. Anaerobic digestion
decomposes organic wastes in an oxygen-deprived setting, usually a tank, to produce
1
methane and an organic sludge called digestate, which can be composted and used as
fertilizer. Pyrolysis involves heating biomass in an oxygen-restricted environment to produce
methane and biochar, an organic substance that is nutrient-rich and a carbon sink.
Combustion is the direct burning of biomass to produce methane; this method can often be
done in coal or oil-based boilers (2013, p. 6). Lastly, cogeneration, also known as combined
heat and power (CHP) is the process of producing heat and electricity simultaneously from a
single source, which can be biomass; heat that is traditionally lost in the grid is cycled back
into the system and used to produce more energy (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage,
2014, p. 1). If cooling is built into the system as well, it is known as tri-generation (NSW
Office of Environment and Heritage, 2014, p. 10).
Figure 1. Feedstock pathways and conversion methods (Ison et al., 2013, p. 5)
In terms of feedstocks, there are a variety of options that are more compatible with
certain extraction methods. The thermal technologies, which include pyrolysis and
combustion, are best suited and most efficient in processing dry mass, while anaerobic
digestion feeds best from liquid or wet wastes (Sustainability Victoria, n.d.). Agriculturalrelated wastes include crop residue as well as livestock wastes; these sources are useful
because the waste often has no other purpose and needs to be disposed of in some way (Clean
Energy Council, 2008a, p. 19). Australia especially, can convert sugar cane residue, known as
bagasse, into energy. Taylor and Quirk estimate that 30 tons of dry residue per hectare are
2
produced from sugar cane harvesting annually; this could produce a significant amount of
energy (2010, p. 303). Similarly, landfill gas and sewage gas also make use of a waste that
would otherwise just release emissions into the atmosphere. Landfills and sewage treatment
plants both release methane naturally as the products break down. Rather than let it go into
the atmosphere, this gas can be captured and converted into energy (Clean Energy Council,
2008a, p. 19). Additionally, municipal organic waste and wood-related wastes can be
converted to energy (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 19). Biomass can also intentionally be
produced. Certain crops or woody plants are grown specifically to be converted into energy; a
lot of research has recently been conducted on the potential to use invasive plants or weeds as
an energy source (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 19).
1.2.2 Benefits of Bioenergy
Using feedstocks and conversion methods, “The Australian Business Roundtable on
Climate Change estimated that bioenergy could supply between 19.8% and 30.7% of
Australia’s electricity needs by 2050” (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 21). Currently,
bioenergy only contributes 0.9% of Australia’s energy, which is significantly lower than
other industrialized nations, such as Austria at 4.2% and Finland at 14.3% of their total
energy productions (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 12).
Figure 2. Bioenergy’s contribution to electricity in leading OECD
countries (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 12)
3
It would be advantageous for Australia to increase its use of bioenergy, as it has many
environmental, social, and economic benefits. The Australian Bioenergy Roadmap,
conducted by the Clean Energy Council states,
The bioenergy industry is quite different to other renewable energy generation, such
as solar or wind generation, as it often involves a combination of complex processes
to create usable energy. Due to this unique combination of activities, bioenergy is
capable of delivering multiple environmental, social and economic benefits… (2008a,
p. 5).
Most obviously, bioenergy can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Methane releases fewer
emissions when burned compared to coal (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 6). Additionally,
organic waste that is left to decompose in a field or landfill releases methane directly into the
atmosphere; diverting that waste and converting it into energy can further reduce emissions
(Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p 6). Biochar, a by-product of pyrolysis, sequesters carbon
and can be a useful carbon sink (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 129). Furthermore, both biochar and
digestate produced from anaerobic digestion can replace nitrogen fertilizers for agriculture,
which also reduces emissions (Ison et al., 2013, p. 6). In terms of economic benefits,
bioenergy is expected to be cheaper than coal as the threat of climate change worsens (Clean
Energy Council, 2008a, p. 15). Natural gas produced locally also tends to be cheaper than
grid-purchased electricity (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2014, p. 7). It will
provide jobs, supporting the local economy (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 7). Ison et al.
also support this claim, noting that many of the jobs will be locally sourced (2012, p. 10).
Lastly, it is a secure energy source, as it is continuously supplied and includes a variety of
feedstocks (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 6).
1.3 The Northern Rivers Region
The Northern Rivers Region, on the Northeast coast of New South Wales, is an ideal
location to utilize bioenergy. The Region includes Tweed, Byron, Kyogle, Lismore, Ballina,
Richmond Valley and Clarence Valley shires (Regional Development Australia [RDA]Northern Rivers, 2011, p. 1). With a sub-tropical climate, the region receives high
precipitation, making solar energy unreliable to supply continuous electricity on a large scale
(Ison et al., 2012, p. 9). In an interview with Mark Byrne, the convener of the North Coast
Energy Forum, he explains, “Lots of rain, expensive land and not much wind mean that we
are unlikely to ever attract big solar or wind farms... there is still huge potential for much
4
more small-scale renewable energy like bioenergy...” (Rollings, 2014, p. 6). Additionally, the
fertile land makes the Region an agriculture hub, producing large quantities of agricultural
waste, which can be used as prime feedstock (RDA- Northern Rivers, 2011, p. 1). The
Region produces wheat, barley, grain sorghum, maize, triticale, field peas and soybeans
(RDA-Northern Rivers, 2011, p. 2). In terms of other crops, the Northern Rivers Region
produces a variety of vegetables, the majority of Australia’s macadamia nuts, and other fruits
(RDA-Northern Rivers, 2011, pp. 5-7). The Northern Rivers Food Profile conducted by
RDA- Northern Rivers claims, “Poultry (for eggs and meat), dairy cattle and meat cattle are
prominent types of livestock in the Northern Rivers region and have been the key historical
industries for the region” (2011, p. 3). In fact, Casino is considered to be the NSW Beef
Capital (RDA- Northern Rivers, 2011, p. 3). All of these sectors produce considerable waste
that could be fed into a multitude of bioenergy systems.
With a population of 300,000 (RDA- Northern Rivers, 2011, p. 1) and projected to
grow 37% by 2036 (Rollings, 2014, p. 2), bioenergy could be particularly advantageous for
this area. Furthermore, unemployment is estimated to be 6.3%, which is higher than the NSW
average of 5.8% (RDA- Northern Rivers, 2011, p. 18). Increased bioenergy can bring in local
jobs and stimulate the economy.
1.3.1 Current Examples in NSW
The Northern Rivers region is currently a leading example for the rest of the country,
with the two largest bioenergy facilities in the North Coast: the Cape Byron Power
cogeneration plants at the Condong and Broadwater Sugar Mills (Ison et al., 2012, p. 9). The
Condong Plant produces 30 MW and the Broadwater Plant produces 38 MW
(www.ncef.net.au). A third facility, a biochar generator, was under consideration (Ison et al.,
2012, p. 9). The generator, which would be located at the Ballina Waste Management Centre,
would annually divert 29,000 tons of waste from landfills, produce 7,000 tons of biochar, and
would generate 6,000 MWh of electricity (Ballina Shire Council, n.d.). The Commonwealth
of Australia had funded AU$4.25 million for the project, but after four years of research it
was determined that the plant would not currently be economically feasible and the project
has since been put on hold (Cruickshank, 2015, pers. comm.). However, a collaboration of
organizations in the area has just received a grant to further research and implement
bioenergy ‘hubs’ in the region (Meyer, 2014).
1.4 Social Licenses
Even with all of the stated benefits, there is still concern that bioenergy may have
5
negative impacts, such as increased pollution, and as the Clean Energy Council states, a
“justifiable concern that an increase in the value of biomass resources and primary wastes,
arising from energy production could add demand for more ‘wastes’” (2008a, p. 14). The
Northern Rivers Region is known for its high biodiversity, and some community members
believe that bioenergy threatens this unique environment (Meyer, 2014, p. 12). In order to
address those concerns, it is important to gain informed and genuine community support for
the use of bioenergy. In recent years, industries have established a Social License to Operate
(SLO) in order to gain community support. An SLO is defined as “the ongoing acceptance or
approval for a development that is granted by the local community and other stakeholders”
(Hall, 2014, p. 219). Developed from the ideas of corporate social responsibility, SLOs were
first used in the mining industry to gain community support (Hall, Lacey, Carr-Cornish, &
Dowd, 2015, p. 301).
1.4.1 Why are they important?
Developers looking to establish an SLO begin from “the assumption that they do not
currently hold a social license, and that they must engage in ongoing, dialogic negotiation of
community and societal expectations and perceptions” (Hall, 2014, p. 223). The license is not
static; it must constantly be evaluated and renewed, as community perceptions change (Hall,
2014, p. 220). SLOs are important, as many industries and governments have recognized that
issues have often arisen because the community was not appropriately engaged in the
decision-making process (Hall, 2014, p. 232).
Hall explains, “An SLO will reflect transparency, legitimacy, credibility and trust,
will address power inequalities, and will develop meaningful partnerships” (2014, p. 224).
She further explains how to develop an SLO: 1) Identify stakeholders; 2) Define local issues
with key stakeholders; 3) Engage the community through active participation, information
dissemination, and consultation; and 4) Create an evaluation framework for the SLO (2014,
pp. 225-226). A mining representative interviewed in another study notes that measurement
and evaluation must be community-specific and cannot be a general assessment (Hall et al.,
2015, p. 307). A report published by the North Coast Energy Forum (2015) determined that a
successful SLO for the Northern Rivers Region would be identified through the presence of
positive press, local political support, community investment, use of bioenergy, reduced
waste, and the absence of “anti” lobbying groups (p. 2).
When developing a social license, it is important to consider and involve all affected
parties. A study conducted on waste management projects (2005, p. 9) identified three
stakeholder groups: community, industry, and government. More specifically, ‘community’
6
includes neighboring residents, workers, businesses and public institutions, such as schools,
community centers, and aged care facilities, the electorate (local, state, federal),
environmental NGOs, and special interest groups (Waste Management Association of
Australia, 2005, p. 9). Looking at bioenergy, the study notes that environmental, social, and
economic impacts must be considered in all stages of energy development; developers need
to consider the geographic location of the feedstocks and the distance they need to be moved
to the processing plant, the rate at which the feedstocks are produced, the reliability of the
feedstocks and extraction method, and the quality (Waste Management Association of
Australia, 2005, p. 33). No particular method of bioenergy is perfect, but the benefits need to
be maximized and the drawbacks minimized in order to successfully develop a social license.
Figure 3. Steps to develop a social license for bioenergy (Waste
Management Association of Australia, 2005, p. 26)
7
One of the major shortcomings of SLOs is their lack of clarity, with one study calling
SLOs “amorphous” (Bice, 2014, p. 75). She continues,
Companies need to more clearly define the criteria which underpin their social
licenses to facilitate more apparent and measurable indicators against which
stakeholders can make their own judgments…[this] would require companies to
develop better means of capturing and reporting on social data (2014, p. 75).
The social aspects of SLOs are particularly difficult to measure and identify and yet, they are
often the most controversial (Waste Management Association of Australia, 2005, p. 40). Bice
notes that issues often arise because there is a lack of transparency in regards to social issues
associated with the industry; she attributes this largely to the difficulty of measuring these
impacts (2014, p. 74). This is why proactive and informed education is necessary to ensure
community understanding (Waste Management Association of Australia, 2005, p. 40). In
conjunction with social issues, a study conducted by Paragreen & Woodley (2013) found that
conflict has previously arisen between industry and community because risks, benefits, and
other impacts are unequally distributed among community members (p. 49).
While SLOs are being used more commonly in the energy industry, little research has
been conducted on their use specifically regarding bioenergy. A study researching SLOs for
bioenergy in India found that a particular project did not “face any known community
conflicts because from the very beginning of the project, engagement with the community
and other stakeholders was undertaken since one of the important objectives of the project
was capacity building of the local communities” (Eswarlal, Vasudevan, Dey, & Vasudevan,
2014, p. 337). Eswarlal et al. further note that specific community needs should to be
identified and addressed in order to make bioenergy accepted (2014, p. 341).
1.4.2 Current Perceptions
The Northern Rivers Region has recently launched a strong anti-CSG campaign. The
CSG industry failed to develop a social license to begin drilling, and this was one of the main
reasons that the community reacted so strongly (Cruickshank, 2015, pers. comm.). In a region
that is already distrustful of energy industries, especially unconventional methods, it is
imperative that a social license is developed for bioenergy before it is further explored.
Without community support, the industry will fail; this is especially true for biomass because
it is a local energy source, with a majority of the feedstock being produced in the community
(Cruickshank, 2015, pers. comm.).
8
1.5 Study Goals and Justification
Sustainability includes the use of resources at a rate equal to or lower than the rate at
which they are replenished (Heinberg, 2010, p. 14). In this way, resources will be available
for long-term use and for future generations. Anaerobic digestion, as just one example,
encourages sustainability because it reuses waste that would otherwise be disposed of
permanently. It is a source of renewable energy because as humans continue to produce
waste, there will always be a source of energy. It produces sludge that can be composted and
returned to farms to make the soil more productive and reduce the reliance on fertilizers that
release greenhouse gases.
However, sustainability also encompasses social and economic sustainability.
Increasing the use of bioenergy in a place like the Northern Rivers, where the soils are fertile
also contributes to economic sustainability. Harnessing biomass localizes the production of
energy and stimulates the economy. According to Robert Putnam, social sustainability is the
maintenance of the “norms and networks that enable collective action” (Dillard, Dujon &
King, 2010, p. 21). In this regard, assessing community acceptance of bioenergy will foster a
sense of cooperation and trust between business and the general public. Additionally, it will
provide jobs to the locals.
It is clear that further research of bioenergy in Australia, but specifically in the
Northern Rivers Region, is important for the future of the planet. As of 2013, only about 13%
of electricity generated in New South Wales came from a renewable source (NSW
Government Department of Trade and Investment, 2014, p. 1). In order to meet the target of
20% renewable energy in NSW by 2020, additional alternative energy sources must be
developed (NSW Premier and Cabinet, 2006, p. 1). However, bioenergy will not be
successful unless there is community support. With so few studies assessing SLOs for
bioenergy, further research needs to be conducted. This study aims to assess the current
perceptions, benefits, and risks of bioenergy in the Northern Rivers Region in order to
determine how to best proceed. This will be done through interviews and surveys with key
stakeholders and the general public and the analysis of anaerobic digestion on a small-scale
dairy.
9
2. Methodology
2.1 Overview
I partnered with Sustain Northern Rivers and the NSW Office of Environment and
Heritage under the supervision of Paul Cruickshank and Natalie Meyer to develop my
project. Based in Alstonville, NSW and Nimbin, NSW I worked to study bioenergy in the
Northern Rivers Region, assess community support and awareness, and work to develop a
social license. My work consisted of two projects: to study community support and
awareness of bioenergy and to begin preliminary feasibility testing for an anaerobic digester
at Nimbin Valley Dairy. I used my research to study social and technical aspects of
bioenergy, both of which are important in its successful development. My research is part of
a larger Bio-Hub grant that was awarded to Sustain Northern Rivers in 2014 to study various
aspects of bioenergy. The results of the interviews and surveys will be used to determine the
role bioenergy will play in the region and to develop workshops and forums in order to better
engage the community in the future of the industry.
2.2 Ethical Considerations
Because I planned to conduct interviews and distribute online surveys, I needed to
consider ethical issues that might arise in the process. During the first week of the ISP, I
created a written consent form for interviewees, which included an agreement to participate
as well as how to acknowledge the interviewee. Every interviewee was required to sign the
consent form in order to be interviewed. I plan to use my results in the United States, so this
was vital.
For the online survey, I used the first question as the consent form. I kept it shorter (to
prevent discouragement), highlighting the purpose of the study, the minimal risks, the
confidentiality, and the voluntary participation of the survey. Participants that chose “I agree”
were allowed to continue on to the survey. Anyone that selected “I do not agree” was
automatically directed to the end of the survey. This ensured that all participants that actually
completed the survey had given consent.
All of the raw data, consent forms, and other identifiable material has been stored on
my personal computer in encrypted folders with password protection.
2.3 Background Research
I first spent time acquainting myself with the previous literature about bioenergy, its
use in the Northern Rivers Region, and the importance and history of social licenses for
10
industries. I read articles and books about the potential for bioenergy in Australia, before
focusing on projects in the Northern Rivers region. I then turned to articles about social
licenses and developing community support to learn about previous successes and failures
and their importance. The articles I found were mostly about social licenses in regard to coal
mining, CSG, and wind energy because very few articles have been written on this subject in
relation to bioenergy. I took notes on all of the articles that I read, and I used the sources and
notes to create a literature review and provide a basis for my interviews and online survey.
2.4 Nimbin Valley Dairy Pre-Feasibility Questionnaire
Nimbin Valley Dairy, a small goat and cow dairy located in Nimbin, NSW, is
interested in installing an anaerobic digester. Utilitas, a biogas company, has invested a
substantial amount of money in the project, and the NNIC in conjunction with the Bio-Hub
grant, has agreed to lead the research phase of the installation process. In order to build a
correctly sized digester, Utilitas needs to know how much feedstock the dairy has and the
nutrient content of those feedstocks. The company requires samples of all the feedstocks to
conduct tests that will measure the potential gas output. Before those tests can be done,
preliminary sampling must be done to analyze the nutrient content of the feedstocks. I spent a
day collecting samples on the farm to be sent to the Environmental Analysis Laboratory in
Lismore. On April 13, 2015, I collected cow, goat, and pig manure; cow and goat whey; dairy
wash-off; and goat bedding. These are all the potential feedstocks on the farm. Once those
results come back, the same samples will be recollected and sent to the lab at Utilitas to
determine the biogas potential. These tests will move the project to the investment phase.
In addition to the sampling, Utilitas required a questionnaire to be completed that
reported site information, current energy usage, current waste production, and current water
consumption. On April 17, 2015, I met with Paul Wilson, one of the co-owners of the dairy to
input the data for the questionnaire. This questionnaire will complement the sampling tests to
move Nimbin Valley Dairy one step closer to getting the anaerobic digester installed on their
property.
2.4.1 Analysis and Synthesis
Initially, I thought that I would be analyzing data and conducting a technical study to
provide a quantitative analysis. Because my results did not provide technical data, I chose to
use qualitative analysis. After my week in Nimbin, I reflected on my experience and what I
learned about the realities of purchasing and installing an anaerobic digester. This became an
11
informal participant observation, so I did not use a framework. However, I used my reflection
and personal observations to draw conclusions.
2.5 Assessing Current Perceptions in the Northern Rivers Region
2.5.1 Creating Interview Questions
During the first week of the ISP, I worked with Paul Cruickshank and Katrina Shields
to develop my interview questions. I created questions to fit under three general concepts:
benefits of bioenergy, risks of bioenergy, and appropriate steps to develop a social license. I
formatted the questions to move from general to more specific. The questions first focused on
the interviewee’s background (intellectual and career-related), before delving into the
benefits and drawbacks of bioenergy, the feedstocks, the extraction methods, and the politics
surrounding the issue in the Northern Rivers Region. I structured the interview with major
questions and follow-ups. I created an overview document that introduced the purpose of the
study and myself; it also included the interview questions, and consent form (see Appendix B
for interview questions).
2.5.2 Contacting Potential Interviewees
The next phase of preparation was contacting potential interviewees. After reading
about the NCEF, I created a general list of stakeholders that I was interested in interviewing;
I tried to target all industries that would be involved in bioenergy. From my general list, I
contacted NCEF members for specific names and recommendations. Paul provided additional
names and contact details; he also gave me organizations to contact to request specific
people. After compiling all of the recommendations, I had a list of 38 stakeholders. I created
a template email introducing the project and requesting an interview and sent individual
emails to each interviewee with the project overview attached, so they could get a clear
picture of my request. Over the next week and a half, I handled responses to my requests and
worked to schedule each interview to accommodate the participant.
2.5.3 Conducting Interviews
I conducted 24 interviews both in-person and via phone between April 13, 2015 and
May 1, 2015. The goal of the interviews was to get an in-depth perspective into bioenergy
from multiple viewpoints. I interviewed the following key stakeholders:




Tony Vancov via phone on April 13, 2015
Brian Restall via phone on April 14, 2015
Greg Reid via phone on April 20, 2015
Anonymous Interviewee in person on April 20, 2015
12




















Thomas O’Reilly in person at Stone and Wood Brewery on April 20, 2015
Dr. Graeme Palmer in person at Southern Cross University on April 21, 2015
Dr. Doland Nichols in person at Southern Cross University on April 21, 2015
Michael Qualmann in person at Café Capello on April 21, 2015
Peter Robson via phone on April 22, 2015
John Walker via phone on April 22, 2015
Anonymous Interviewee via phone on April 23, 2015
Chris Connors via phone on April 23, 2015
Dailan Pugh in person at his home on April 23, 2015
Hogan Gleeson in person at Goanna Café on April 24, 2015
Jo Immig in person at Utopia Café on April 24, 2015
Cam Palmer via phone on April 27, 2015
Troy Green via phone on April 27, 2015
Dr. Kristin Den Exter via phone on April 27, 2015
Anonymous Interviewee in person on April 28, 2015
Kevin Trustum via phone on April 28, 2015
Dr. John Kaye via phone on April 30, 2015
Anonymous Interviewee via phone on April 30, 2015
Don Coyne via phone on May 1, 2015
Gary Murphy via phone on May 1, 2015
I ensured that the consent form was signed before I conducted the interviews. I took notes on
my computer during the interview and then reread them and polished them up after the
completion of the interview. Depending on the interview, I asked additional questions not
listed on the document as follow-up based on what the interviewee had said. Sometimes, I
skipped questions because I felt that they did not pertain to the specific interviewee. The
interviews lasted between 30-60 minutes. Immediately after completing the interview, I sent a
thank you email to the participant based on the template email I had created.
2.5.4 Preparing the Survey
Initially, I was not planning to distribute a survey; rather I wanted to focus on the
interviews. But, after a discussion with Paul, we realized that the interviews were only
targeting key stakeholders, and not the general community. We decided to create an online
survey using Qualtrics, which would be distributed to the community. I structured the
questions based on the interview questions, but made them more general and less technical.
While the interviews lasted between 30-60 minutes, the survey was intended to take no more
than 10 minutes, so as not to deter participants. Once an initial draft of the survey was
completed, I sent it to Katrina Shields, Mark Byrne, and Natalie Myer for review. They
submitted comments back to me, and I made changes accordingly. When it went live, I sent
the anonymous link to the NCEF members as my pilot study, and made further changes to the
questions and answer choices based on their feedback (see Appendix A for the survey).
13
2.5.5 Distributing the Survey
The survey went live on April 13, 2015. Paul handled the distribution because he had
access to several list serves. He sent it to his personal contact list, all of the General Managers
of the seven councils in the Northern Rivers Region (Ballina, Byron, Clarence Valley,
Kyogle, Lismore City, Richmond Valley, and Tweed councils) to be forwarded on to their
contacts, the Sustain Energy working group which is comprised of 27 organizations (to be
forwarded on to their contacts), and the OEH mailing list; the link was also included in the
NCEF newsletter. Because the link was sent to others to be forwarded on to additional
people, it is difficult to know the exact number of people that received the link. Additionally,
some people may have received it twice because they are on multiple list serves. However, it
is estimated that the link was sent to approximately 550 people. I created a template email to
accompany the link, which Paul used when he sent out the survey to his databases.
Additionally, I sent the link to Thomas O’Reilly at Stone and Wood Brewery; he was one of
my interviewees and he offered to send it to the 40 other staff members at Stone and Wood.
On April 14, 2015 Joanne Shoebridge interviewed me on her morning program for
ABC North Coast NSW Local Radio. She had contacted me the day before and requested to
conduct an interview with me after receiving the survey link. During the interview, she asked
about my study abroad program, my interest in the environment, my ISP project, a few
questions about bioenergy, the importance of a social license (in relation CSG), and the
survey. She shared the survey link on the radio’s Facebook page as well. The survey was
closed on May 2, 2015 with a total of 78 responses and an approximate 14% response rate.
2.5.6 Compiling Interview Results
After each interview, I read through the transcript and wrote down key messages or
common themes that other interviewees had mentioned. I noted any bias and the perspective
that the interviewee took. I used my analyses to find overarching themes and created
recommendations based on what people said. For my quantitative analysis I created a
framework of keywords that I had found in my interviews. Those keywords include base
load, complex, transportation costs, transparency, capital investment, and economic viability.
I tallied the number of interviewees that mentioned each of those words to find percentages. I
also tallied the number of interviewees that accepted each feedstock option and the number of
interviewees that preferred a specific conversion technology or strictly ruled one out. Lastly, I
tallied the number of interviewees that believed there was low community awareness about
bioenergy versus high community awareness. To support my qualitative analysis, I extracted
relevant and valuable quotes from various interviews to be used in my paper. I used all of
14
those calculations, as well as the common themes found throughout to make my
recommendations and draw conclusions.
2.5.7 Survey Analysis
I used the 78 responses I received on the survey to conduct both quantitative and
qualitative analysis. The survey host I used, Qualtrics, allowed me to conduct most of my
analysis online. I created a report, which displayed the number of people and corresponding
percentages that chose each answer for each question, as well as statistical information, such
as mean, variance and standard deviation. I was also able to view graphs for each response
and create tables. I exported the data to Excel so that I could create graphs and tables in a
more accessible format. To look for correlations, I used the cross tabulation function on the
program, which allowed me to compare responses to two different questions; the program
also calculated chi-square and t-test values. I looked at correlations between gender and
acceptable feedstocks, education level and acceptable feedstocks, maximum distance to
transport feedstocks and scale of bioenergy facilities, and between knowledge about
bioenergy and education level. In addition to my quantitative analysis, some of my questions
were open ended and I used those responses to make connections, extract quotes, and find
common themes, as I did with the interviews. I used all of my survey results in conjunction
with my interview results to draw conclusions.
2.6 Limitations and Constraints
There were a few factors that created limitations on the scope of my research.
Bioenergy is a large, complex field. There were many more areas I would have liked to
explore, but time limited me. In terms of my interviews, time was also the biggest inhibitor. I
sent out over thirty requests for interviews, and received over twenty responses; I would have
liked to interview anyone that had replied to me, but I set my limit at 25 participants because
I did not have enough time to complete them all. Additionally, some of my interviewees
suggested more people to contact and I did not have time to interview them either. However,
I have given all of those names to Sustain Northern Rivers for future projects and research.
As for the survey, the databases I used created a slight bias. The anonymous link was
sent to several environmental databases, so it selected for a certain portion of the population,
rather than be truly representative. We asked participants to forward it on to others to get as
wide of a response as we could, but inevitably some bias was created and not everyone
received the link to make it representative. I did not have access to all email addresses or
forums to reach everyone in the Northern Rivers Region, and I had to rely on the databases
15
that Paul had. This also presented another challenge. Because the survey was distributed via
list serves and asking others to forward it on, I had trouble knowing the exact number of
people that received the link to take the survey. This made determining the response rate
difficult, and I had to approximate. While the results might be slightly skewed, they are still
viable. Additionally, I added one question after the survey had already gone live, in
accordance with my advisor’s suggestion. Some of the first participants did not have a chance
to answer this question, but I believe that I changed it early enough so it did not skew the
data.
16
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Feasibility of Anaerobic Digestion for Nimbin Valley Dairy: A Case Study
3.1.1 Environmental Benefits- Powering the Farm
Nimbin Valley Dairy upholds itself to high sustainable principles. “We take the
sustainability of our farm very seriously and uphold our commitment to walk lightly on our
Earth” (nimbinvalley.com.au). They have already started a tree planting program to offset the
emissions from their goats and cows; to date they have planted enough trees to offset all of
their goats and are now working to offset the emissions from their cows
(nimbinvalley.com.au). To further these principles, Paul and Kerry Wilson, the two coowners of Nimbin Valley Dairy, initially met with Natalie Meyer, the Manager of NNIC, to
discuss the potential of installing a generation plant to supply their gas needs on the farm
(Meyer, 2015, pers. comm.). When asked why installing an anaerobic digester was important,
Paul Wilson responded, “Nimbin Valley Dairy has always been concerned about
environmental sustainability and that's a big part of the Nimbin Valley brand; [this generation
unit] dove tails nicely with where we want to take the business” (Wilson, 2015, pers. comm.).
However, upon initial analysis, Meyer, Wilson, and Wilson realized that the farm did
not use enough gas to make a generation plant viable. This highlights one of the first realities
of bioenergy; most bioenergy conversion processes in their cheapest forms produce methane
or some other form of gas, which is best suited to then be used for gas-powered devices. To
create electricity would require additional conversion equipment. Utilitas, Australia’s first
biomethane potential testing facility, signed on to the project shortly after the 2014 NCEF
and committed to invest a substantial amount of money into the project (Meyer, 2015, pers.
comm.). With these additional funds, Nimbin Valley Dairy could install a tri-generation plant
to produce heating, cooling and electricity. This highlights a second reality of bioenergy.
While capital investments are large, there are opportunities available to help farmers and
other industries establish bioenergy facilities.
The farm’s operations use a lot of electricity; the milking machines, air conditioning
units for the cooling rooms, the maturing and freezing rooms, and all the buildings on the
property are powered by electricity. Additionally, electricity is needed for cooling milk and to
recharge the portable cool box (Wilson, 2015, pers. comm.). Wilson estimates that the farm
uses 52 domestic gas bottles per year to heat the water and pasteurize the milk (2015, pers.
comm.). While it is unknown how much energy can be supplied by the tri-generation unit
until testing is complete, the anaerobic digester will be able to supply a portion of the farm’s
energy needs and reduce reliance on the grid, which is supplied by fossil fuels.
17
3.1.2 The Need to Grow
According to Meyer, Nimbin Valley Dairy currently has 25 milking cows and 200
goats (2015, pers. comm.). After initial inquiry, Utilitas determined that the waste produced
from those numbers would not be enough to supply very much energy nor make anaerobic
digestion an economically viable option. Because of this, the dairy will need to expand to
include 100 cows and 400 goats (Meyer, 2015, pers. comm.). This highlights a common
challenge associated with bioenergy: availability of a feedstock in large enough volumes.
When considering bioenergy, it is essential to ensure the availability of the feedstock. With
an increased number of animals, the farm will require additional equipment to accommodate
the livestock, which will incur higher energy requirements (Meyer, 2015, pers. comm.). The
farm has also noted that when they increase their livestock numbers, they will also switch
from their current water-cooling system to an ice block cooling system. This will decrease
their water usage, but will also increase their electricity consumption (Meyer, 2015, pers.
comm.). There will always be environmental trade-offs when considering various
technologies, such as bioenergy. This presents additional complexities, and consideration of
cost-benefit analyses and life cycle analyses could prove useful in determining the feasibility
of a bioenergy plant. Similarly, the farm will need to build a concrete feeding pad to collect
the manure and handle the additional livestock (Meyer, 2015, pers. comm.). Producing
concrete has greenhouse gas emissions associated with it, so this is another example where a
cost-benefit analysis or life cycle analysis would be useful to determine if the anaerobic
digester will actually reduce emissions.
3.1.3 Complexities of Measuring Output
In order to determine the appropriate size for the digester, Utilitas required a technical
questionnaire to be completed. The questionnaire included information about the physical
site, energy consumption, water consumption, and current waste disposal methods. Working
to complete this questionnaire highlighted additional complexities when it comes to installing
a bioenergy facility. The farm needs to expand in order to provide enough feedstocks, so their
energy consumption and waste amounts are going to be different than they currently are now.
However, they have not expanded yet, so it was hard to measure the potential consumption
statistics. This made completing the questionnaire more difficult, and I was forced to rely on
the current numbers and rates. Furthermore, some of the questions required very technical
responses that even Paul or Kerry Wilson did not know. This presented a second challenge to
accurately and successfully complete the questionnaire. My role in this process has taught me
18
that there are many hurdles to cross and many different factors to consider when installing an
anaerobic digester, or a bioenergy facility in general, even on a small scale.
3.1.4 Next Steps and Future Implications
Once the initial samples I collected are tested, those results will be inputted into the
questionnaire, and it can be sent to Utilitas. More samples of manures, bedding, and other
waste products will be collected in the coming weeks and sent to Utilitas with the
questionnaire. Utilitas will use those samples and the responses to the questionnaire to
determine the biomethane potential and to recommend a specific size for the digester,
bringing the process to the investment phase (Meyer, 2015, pers. comm.). In the meantime,
Nimbin Valley Dairy needs to begin increasing its livestock numbers in preparation for the
required feedstock volumes. At the completion of the project, they will have a tri-generation
anaerobic digester unit. The farm is also planning to build a door cellar building for tastings;
this building will have a display of the tri-generation unit, so that visitors and tour groups can
see the digester at work and better comprehend the energy that is being produced.
3.2 The Potential Bioenergy Industry
3.2.1 The Importance of Renewable Energy
Based on evidence from both the surveys and interviews, it is clear that renewable
energy is an important topic to address for residents of the Northern Rivers Region. In the
general public online survey, participants were asked about the importance of incorporating
renewable energy into the political conversation; 83% of respondents indicated that it was
“extremely important” to discuss renewable energy, while 9% said “important” and only 8%
said “not very important.” Comments made by several interviewees also supported the
community’s interest in renewable energy. An anonymous researcher explained in her
interview, “People move to this area because they love the environment and they have a
different set of values.” John Walker, the General Manager of the Richmond Valley Council,
supported this as well, stating, “The North Coast region in some areas has clearly rejected
CSG as an option, and [they] are very much into renewables as a provision of energy” (2015,
pers. comm.).
Furthermore, when asked if it was important to develop new sources of renewable
energy, 96% of interviewees agreed and one respondent noted that renewable energy was
important to develop, but believed all of the necessary sources already existed. Many
emphasized the need to move away from carbon intensive energy sources such as fossil fuels.
In his interview, Don Coyne, the Coordinator of Biochar-Fest, stated,
19
Obviously global warming is a bit of a concern and [is] contributed by old carbon and
pumping it straight into the atmosphere. We need to get away from that, and there are
opportunities to capture energy from other sources that are free and don’t damage the
atmosphere as much (2015, pers. comm.).
Others also noted the potential economic benefits of switching to renewable energy sources.
Dr. Graeme Palmer, a Researcher at the Forest Research Center of Southern Cross
University, noted, “The U.S. has shown us recently that with investment in this field there is
a good level of energy security and less dependence of foreign countries that produce oil”
(2015, pers. comm.). The importance to increase renewable energy was evident among all
interviewees from people in the industry to environmental activists, regardless of their
background.
3.2.2 Current Community Perceptions
The online survey asked participants to rank solar energy, wind energy, and bioenergy
for commercial scale production. When compared with the other renewable options, 19.7% of
participants ranked bioenergy as their number one choice, while the majority of participants,
78.79%, ranked solar as number one. A majority of participants, 58.62%, ranked bioenergy as
the second best choice. Wind was ranked as the third best choice with 72.73% of respondents
indicating this, and only 1.51% of respondents choosing wind as their top choice. Therefore,
most of the community wants to see solar established on a commercial scale. The community
may have indicated these preferences because solar energy is more established; they may
know less about bioenergy. However, because it was ranked higher than wind, there is still
potential for bioenergy to be accepted by the community on a smaller scale.
90
Percentage of Respondents
80
70
60
50
1st Choice
40
2nd Choice
30
3rd Choice
20
10
0
Solar Energy
Bioenergy
Energy Source
Wind Energy
Figure 4. Renewable energy Rankings by survey participants
20
3.2.3 Benefits and Concerns
Both the community and the interviewees highlighted several benefits of bioenergy.
In terms of environmental benefits, 80% of survey participants indicated that they thought
that bioenergy would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Several interviewees noted that this
could be as a result of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, capturing methane from landfills
or dairy farms, and capturing carbon by growing biomass or using biochar. In his interview,
Don Coyne explained, “Particularly with bioenergy it’s really about reducing waste rather
than sending it to landfills to release methane, when it could actually be utilized to create
electricity” (2015, pers. comm.). Gary Murphy explained that Lismore City Council has
resolved to be energy neutral by 2023 (2015, pers. comm.); bioenergy could be a part of that
solution.
Because the community ranked solar higher than bioenergy, it seems that bioenergy
will not be the dominant renewable energy source in the Northern Rivers Region. However,
many interviewees noted that no single energy source should dominate the field; it will take a
combination of multiple renewable energy sources to successfully become 100% renewable.
John Kaye, the Greens member of the NSW Parliament, has been campaigning to phase to a
100% renewable electricity sector. He stated that bioenergy would be a part of that transition,
if not a key role (2015, pers. comm.). Brian Restall explained that there is “no silver bullet.
Each technology has its positives and negatives…all [of the renewable energy sources] will
work together to deliver the right solution for any area” (2015, pers. comm.). In terms of its
role within the energy mix, five of interviewees specifically mentioned the use of bioenergy
as a base load energy source. While solar is a very useful source, there are periods of the year
and periods of the day when solar is not available, especially during peak use; unless
homeowners purchase batteries it will be difficult to go completely off the grid (Reid, 2015,
pers. comm.). Michael Qualmann further explained that while solar and wind energy is not
always reliable, bioenergy can be produced reliably all the time. He further rationalized that
even as solar batteries become more available, bioenergy is a better base load source because
it does not create the same toxic wastes that batteries do (2015, pers. comm.). As for local
industries, Greg Reid emphasized,
There’s a growing interest in this area in becoming independent from the grid. This
will largely depend on solar and battery storage, but there’s an essential role for
bioenergy particularly where it can be combined for cogeneration for local industries
(2015, pers. comm.).
21
Cam Palmer explained, “[Bioenergy is] one of the few forms of renewable energy that can
provide base load electricity generation. The energy in biomass is stored energy- it can be
viewed as a ‘battery’” (2015, pers. comm.).
Many also emphasized the importance of waste reduction and diversion. Seventy-one
percent of survey respondents acknowledged that bioenergy would divert waste from landfills
as a benefit. Hogan Gleeson, the Director of Urban Ecological Systems, works to turn waste
into something useful. He has been studying bioenergy as one option and believes that it can
have a role in reducing waste (2015, pers. comm.).
Aside from environmental benefits, many also noted economic and social benefits.
First of all, bioenergy can put revenue back into the local economy, rather than pay foreign
energy suppliers. It can provide financial benefits to the industries that produce their own
energy as an additional source of income (Coyne, 2015, pers. comm.). An anonymous
interviewee also noted that bioenergy can be an opportunity for group investment, which
creates a local energy source and reduces reliance on foreign energy companies. Dr. Graeme
Palmer further stated, “Bioenergy has one distinctive advantage where you have control over
the market” (2015, pers. comm.). Additionally, 91% of survey respondents indicated that
bioenergy had the potential to be a reliable, local energy source. For a region that is fairly
rural, Troy Green and John Kaye pointed out that bioenergy can help reengage struggling
farmers and provide an additional income (2015, pers. comm.). For many potential waste
streams, it costs money to dispose of them, but if they were redirected to bioenergy
processes, they could generate revenue instead (Palmer, 2015, pers. comm.). From an
industry perspective, Thomas O’Reilly at Stone and Wood Brewery explained that breweries
produce a lot of liquid organic waste that must be treated in order to go down the drain. This
is costly, but if it could produce electricity for the brewery, it would save money and be more
sustainable (2015, pers. comm.). One of the most common benefits that were mentioned by
both survey participants and interviewees was the creation of local jobs. Sixty-two percent of
survey respondents believed that bioenergy would provide job opportunities. Greg Reid
supported this statistic, explaining that because bioenergy comes from multiple sources and
has multiple components in its production, it will provide more local jobs than a distant
energy provider (2015, pers. comm.).
However, both survey participants and interviewees also expressed concerns.
Environmentally, many people voiced concern with increased threats to native forests and
biodiversity with 52% of survey respondents indicating this on their surveys. The wood
chipping and timber industry have a bad history in this Region, and many people are
22
skeptical that bioenergy could turn into something similar. Furthermore, Dailan Pugh
explained that bioenergy is a threat to what he believes are genuine renewable sources, such
as solar and wind. He also indicated concern that the bioenergy industry would abuse native
forests, explaining, “NSW has recently given allowance for native wood chips to be burned
for electricity” (2015, pers. comm.). Additionally, some expressed concern with pollution
associated with the conversion of biomass into energy. Forty-three percent of survey
participants indicated concern with increased emissions from combustion, and Greg Reid also
made mention of this potential risk (2015, pers. comm.). Peter Robson expressed concern
with homeowners taking measures into their own hands and producing bioenergy incorrectly
so that it creates health hazards (2015, pers. comm.). Some also worried about the best uses
for potential feedstocks. Several survey participants and interviewees voiced concern that
certain feedstocks would compete with the food industry, in terms of energy crops or with the
composting industry, in terms of certain waste products. As further research is conducted on
potential feedstocks for the region, a full life cycle analysis should be completed to consider
the best end use for the various feedstocks.
From an economic perspective, one of the biggest concerns was about transportation
of feedstocks. Thirteen interviewees specifically mentioned transportation costs making
bioenergy difficult to establish. Additionally, 73% of survey participants were concerned
about trucking feedstocks long distances to the processing plant. Michael Qualmann
expressed concern that trucking would be a problem because it would create extra road
traffic, and would be an expensive cost (2015, pers. comm.). Because it was one of the largest
concerns expressed, it should be carefully considered in further analysis and exploration.
Finally, in terms of economic risks, many interviewees expressed concern with economic
viability. Cam Palmer explained that electricity currently has a low value as well as
Renewable Energy Certificates, so there is the potential that bioenergy may cost more to
produce than the revenue earned (2015, pers. comm.).
While there are some concerns about bioenergy, most are about specific feedstocks or
technologies, rather than bioenergy as a whole. Based on evidence from the public and the
experts, it seems that the benefits outweigh the risks for certain types of bioenergy, and thus
these options should be furthered explored. One potential bias should be noted, however.
While the community survey revealed preliminary support for bioenergy, it is possible that
people that do not support the industry or have no knowledge of bioenergy chose to ignore
the survey instead. Because of this the results may be slightly skewed. As research regarding
community acceptance is further explored, researchers should be aware of this issue and
23
consider it as they conduct future studies. As Hogan Gleeson stated, “Provided it’s a
genuinely sustainable approach, then there aren’t many downsides, but without integrated
planning, then there are potentially many downsides” (2015, pers. comm.). This is why
proper planning is so important.
3.2.4 Potential Feedstocks for the Region
In terms of the potential feedstocks for bioenergy, the following were identified as
possible options for the region: agricultural waste, municipal green waste, timber and forestry
waste, and energy crops. Both survey participants and interviewees expressed various
opinions and preferences regarding feedstocks based on their viability and availability. Based
on the results from the online survey, agricultural wastes, including wet wastes, were the top
feedstock options with 78% of respondents accepting agricultural residues and 86% of
respondents accepting wet wastes. Municipal and commercial waste also had high acceptance
from the community, with each receiving a 78% acceptance level. Forestry wastes from
native forests received one of the lowest acceptance levels with only 34% of respondents
indicating they would be willing to support native forestry wastes, while a slightly higher
61% of respondents accepted forestry waste from plantations. Lastly, energy crops also
Percentage
received low acceptance levels, with only 34% of respondents supporting their use.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Feedstock Options
Figure 5. Percentage of survey respondents that accept each potential feedstock for
use in bioenergy projects
24
The category of agricultural waste includes both crop residues and livestock waste.
One of the largest agricultural residue sources for the region is sugarcane trash and associated
product known as bagasse. As a byproduct, it is an inevitable waste and must be disposed of,
so it does not have many better uses. Energy production from bagasse has been occurring in
the region for over 120 years according to Brian Restall, the Chief Executive of Cape Byron
Power (2015, pers. comm.). They own and operate two plants, Condong and Broadwater;
each generates 30 MW of energy (Restall, 2015, pers. comm.). Furthermore, Cam Palmer
noted that sugarcane trash is a beneficial feedstock because there is an established industry
with infrastructure already in place; this would decrease investment costs (2015, pers.
comm.). However, some have voiced concern with this industry. The plants are not running
at full capacity because there is not enough available feedstock. Peter Robson attributes this
partly due to miscalculations on the actual available feedstock. He explained that farmers
need to burn the paddocks every five years to prevent bacterial build up in the soil and this
was not factored in to the available feedstocks; with the burning every five years, the amount
of available feedstock is actually less than what was previously thought (2015, pers. comm.).
Additionally, sugar cane trash is dry while sugar bagasse has a high moisture content.
Because of this, they often cannot be burned together, making use of the feedstocks together
difficult (Palmer, 2015, pers. comm.). However, it is readily available and as an anonymous
interviewee noted, Brazil has utilized its sugar cane wastes and is now 60% renewable. While
there have been some problems with the sugar cane industry and energy production, it has a
lot of potential, and because the infrastructure already exists, it should be considered for
future bioenergy projects. In order to resolve problems with available feedstocks and
improved efficiency, further research should be conducted on how to best utilize the waste,
considering the full life cycle. Aside from sugar cane, the macadamia industry is very large in
this region, and several interviewees, as well as survey participants, specifically mentioned
using macadamia nut shells for bioenergy, especially because the macadamia processing
plants have large heat requirements. Don Coyne explained that macadamia shells also have a
lot of potential because they are processed in only a few places, so the waste stream is already
concentrated and needs minimal transport (2015, pers. comm.). Any crop residues that are not
already highly concentrated are probably best left to decompose as compost. Crop residues
that are too spread out or in smaller volumes are not economically viable to collect and
transport and provide a greater environmental benefit being returned to the ground.
The other option for agricultural waste is livestock waste, and this option has received
overall acceptance with much fewer problems. Several interviewees emphasized that
25
livestock waste often has no other use and if not disposed of properly can contaminate
waterways and release methane into the atmosphere. With Casino as the beef capital of NSW
and a large number of piggeries and dairy farms in the region, a large volume of potential
feedstock exists already. With so few objections to livestock waste as a feedstock, this is a
very promising option and should be the top option to be explored. Additionally, as the
feedstock is explored, cooperatives and bio-hubs should be formed so that waste producers
concentrated in the same region can combine feedstocks into one facility to reduce
investment costs and minimize transportation.
The second best option is the use of municipal waste, which includes organic waste
and green waste (i.e. garden waste) from homeowners and municipalities. It has potential
because it is already collected in some areas, so this would avoid additional transportation
costs. One of the biggest challenges is the fact that Lismore already composts its green waste.
Several interviewees claimed that this was better than using it for bioenergy because it returns
the nutrients to the soil and is financially a better investment. So, while there is a large
availability and it is already collected in some locations in the Region, it is not currently
viable because it has another use (Trustum, 2015, pers. comm.). Additionally, Cam Palmer
noted potential problems with contamination and associated pollution due to accidentally
burning contaminated green waste (2015, pers. comm.). John Kaye also supported this,
explaining that in order to maintain good air quality, proper separation technologies are
needed, which are expensive (2015, pers. comm.). Jo Immig emphasized a legitimate concern
that utilizing municipal wastes for energy promotes creating more waste to feed the
production. In reality, we should be focusing on how to reduce waste through less
consumption (2015, pers. comm.). However, municipal waste should not be eliminated as a
viable feedstock option. Potential volumes and availability should be explored in locations
that are not composting the material to assess if it would better serve to be composted or
turned into energy. Additionally, the community indicated strong acceptance for wet wastes,
which include human wastes at sewage treatment plants. This feedstock is already collected
and has no other use, so energy should be collected from these plants as well as landfills that
already exist.
Timber waste is perhaps the most controversial feedstock option. Several interviewees
did explain that timber waste is readily available in the region. Within the timber waste
category, there are two types of waste: processing wastes and thinnings left in the forest;
these can come from native forests or plantations. The first issue arises with native forests.
Doland Nichols, a researcher at the Forest Research Center at Southern Cross University,
26
explained that while he believes native forests are the best option for bioenergy in the
Northern Rivers Region, most people in the community do not support using native forests.
He continued that energy has too low of a value compared to other values of leaving the
native forests alone (2015, pers. comm.). Dailan Pugh made the point that leaving forests
alone can actually absorb much more carbon than using them to replace fossil fuels (2015,
pers. comm.). Using native forests for bioenergy also promotes the wrong message, as John
Kaye explained,
[We should] rule out native forestry waste largely because Australia should be
moving out of native forestry use…if you connect the native forest and the energy
industries, then you create a further appetite for native forest use and it’s not
sustainable (2015, pers. comm.).
With such low community acceptance, the Northern Rivers Region should not pursue native
forests as a feedstock for bioenergy.
The other timber option is the use of plantation waste as a feedstock. This has a higher
level of acceptance, but is still accompanied with problems. Plantations do produce a lot of
waste. Doland Nichols explained that with eucalypt plantations growers would need to plant
more trees than they want in order to shade out weeds. But, to prevent disease, growers need
to thin out some of their trees. These have the potential to be used as a bioenergy feedstock.
However, even though these feedstocks are available, they are not necessarily economically
viable. Dr. Graeme Palmer explained that there are high transportation costs with removing
thinnings from the forest (2015, pers. comm.). Other interviewees also made similar
comments. While there are costs associated with removing the thinnings, John Walker also
noted that there is no longer a market for timber in this region, so it might be worth while
exploring some of these plantations for energy purposes to generate revenue that has been
lost. However, at this time, it does not seem viable to pursue forestry residue as a feedstock
for bioenergy on a commercial scale because of community concerns as well as economic
impediments; there are much better feedstocks available that should be pursued first. If
forestry waste is eventually explored as an option, it is imperative to set strict regulations and
clearly define “waste.” Many interviewees expressed concern that the term “waste” will be
abused by the forestry industry as it has been in the past. Much of what is currently
considered waste actually has a value, according to Dailan Pugh. Regulations need to clearly
explain that forestry residue can only be used as a feedstock if it is a genuine waste with no
other purpose, which is the case with some saw mill waste (2015, pers. comm.).
27
In addition to timber waste is non-native timber, particularly camphor laurel, an
invasive species that has grown rapidly in the Region. Some have suggested using this plant
as a feedstock because it is so readily available and removing it would help to address its
invasive problems. Interviewees expressed mixed opinions about this option; five people
were specifically for its use, while four were specifically against its use. It has been explored
in the past to supplement the bagasse at Condong and Broadwater, but many problems arose.
It was removed poorly and this created problems with erosion and water quality; its poor
removal gave it a bad reputation (Den Exter, 2015, pers. comm.). This should not rule it out
as an option, however. Further research should be conducted on its viability and if it is
determined to be a viable feedstock option, strict regulations need to be created to regulate
where and how the camphor laurel is removed to prevent some of the problems that arose last
time.
The last potential option for feedstocks is energy crops. This received very low
support from community members as well as interviewees. Many interviewees explained that
growing crops for bioenergy would create negative competition for the food industry and
reduce food security. Additionally, many noted that growing the energy crops potentially
required more energy and financial investments than the returns. Furthermore, there is not
currently a market for energy crops, and thus they would not bring in a significant amount of
revenue. The only advantage that an anonymous interviewee noted was the potential to grow
crops on marginal land to generate additional income for struggling farmers. However, this
one benefit does not outweigh the drawbacks. At this time, energy crops should not explored
in the region.
In conclusion, based on viability, availability, and community acceptance, agricultural
waste, including crop residues and livestock wastes, is the best feedstock to pursue for
bioenergy in the region. There is potential for other options, but further research needs to be
conducted first. When determining how and where the feedstock should be used, the entire
life cycle needs to be considered and a cost-benefit analysis needs to be done to determine if
the energy produced outweighs the transportation costs and other associated risks. In order
for it to truly be sustainable and renewable, the feedstock must have no better use and this
must be considered in the cost-benefit analysis as well. Finally, there is still a lot unknown
regarding the amount of feedstock available. A thorough feasibility study should be
conducted for the region that outlines exactly what is available. This will provide a better
understanding of how to proceed.
28
3.2.5 Feasible Conversion Technologies
In terms of conversion technologies to process the potential feedstocks, there are three
major methods: anaerobic digestion, combustion, and pyrolysis. Each option has pros and
cons with associated trade-offs. From the community’s perspective, anaerobic digestion was
the favored method, with 58% of respondents selecting this option.
Table 1. Preferred conversion method indicated by survey participants
Bioenergy Technologies
Combustion
Pyrolysis
Anaerobic Digestion
Torrefaction
Percentage of Respondents (%)
12
25
58
5
The interviewee results did not show a clear preference for any specific method, but almost
all of the interviewees supported anaerobic digestion.
Anaerobic digestion works best with liquids and is particularly useful on farms, so
this is an attractive option because the most viable feedstocks are agricultural residues,
including wet livestock waste (Palmer, 2015, pers. comm.). It produces very few emissions
and the byproduct, digestate, can be composted and returned to the soil (Immig, 2015, pers.
comm.). Immig stated, “…Anaerobic digestion doesn’t have the same pollution issues, which
is good, and we’re not entrenching a system that’s making more pollution. It can also be done
off the grid and locally, and that’s a positive” (2015, pers. comm.). Finding a use for
livestock wastes prevents water contamination, which has often been a problem (Pugh, 2015,
pers. comm.). An anonymous interviewee noted, however, that anaerobic digestion is only
good on a small scale, so it is not viable on a large scale. As with the feedstocks, economic
viability is an important consideration. Before any anaerobic digesters are installed, research
needs to be conducted to determine that there is enough feedstock available. This is where the
idea of a bio-hub could be useful. If industries within a concentrated region bring all of their
feedstock to one digester, then it may make it more feasible. This is only one minor drawback
compared to many benefits, so anaerobic digestion should be pursued.
Combustion, in comparison, is a bit more complicated. Some interviewees believed
that combustion was a good source because it maintained carbon neutrality. Brian Restall
explained that combustion does not have emissions that contribute to climate change because
the biomass sequesters the carbon that is released in the combustion process. Furthermore, he
claimed that combustion was the only proven method for solid biomass, such as sugar cane
29
trash (2015, pers. comm.). It also produces more energy than pyrolysis. However, others
expressed concern and disagreed with the carbon neutrality claim. Dailan Pugh, Dr. Graeme
Palmer, and Jo Immig specifically expressed concern about the associated smoke pollution.
The process releases dioxins and other nanoparticles of pollution, such as lead and mercury
(Immig, 2015, pers. comm.). Additionally, they made the claim that combustion was not
carbon neutral. While these are legitimate concerns, combustion is the cheapest option, and
infrastructure has already been built. Cam Palmer explains,
The cogeneration projects at Condong and Broadwater have significant spare capacity
and I suggest that the cost of producing additional renewable energy for the North
Coast from these plants would be far cheaper (per MWh) than any alternative
technology or project due to the ‘sunk’ capital and fully developed infrastructure
(2015, pers. comm.).
However, because it has associated health and pollution risks, further research should be
conducted to determine if the benefits outweigh the costs. The current plants should not be
shut down, but they should not be expanded until a more complete economic and
environmental analysis is done.
Pyrolysis is still a very new technology, so there was no agreement among the experts
yet as to whether or not this was a good option. Additionally, there are many different forms
of pyrolysis and some are believed to be better than others. Some interviewees were excited
by the potential to create biochar, which they believed could sequester carbon. Don Coyne
also mentioned the production of wood vinegar, which can replace a lot of the agrochemicals
used for agriculture. An anonymous interviewee also explained that there has been
community interest in pyrolysis and the production of biochar. As a technology, Hogan
Gleeson claimed that it is cleaner than combustion and can be used in conjunction with
combined heat and power systems. However, others remained skeptical. Some, such as Jo
Immig, still believe that it releases pollutants and is not carbon neutral (2015, pers. comm.).
Others argue that it is still too expensive on a large scale. And others still, such as Dr.
Graeme Palmer, were skeptical of the benefits of biochar (2015, pers. comm.). It seems that it
has a lot of potential, but it is evident that extensive research needs to be conducted still to
determine the viability and benefits of pyrolysis. It should not be disregarded completely, but
should not be pursued until further research has been conducted.
3.2.6 Appropriate Scale
Based on the available feedstocks and the preferred conversion technologies,
bioenergy is best suited to be created on a small to medium scale. According to several
30
interviewees, it will never be a dominant energy source, but as mentioned above it can serve
as a base load source to provide reliable energy during peak times. A few interviewees and
survey participants did think that bioenergy could be a major supplier but they were in the
minority. Several interviewees provided useful suggestions as to how to best utilize the
available feedstocks on an appropriate scale. Troy Green suggested that small farms in close
proximity to one another form a cooperative to collectively produce energy with their
feedstocks (2015, pers. comm.). This would cut down on investment costs and maximize the
energy produced. Gary Murphy also suggested building bioenergy facilities in conjunction
with solar farms to provide the base load power needed (2015, pers. comm.). While some
interviewees did not think bioenergy would be economically viable on a small scale, such as
on-site production, others thought that the larger productions would not be viable because of
the transportation costs associated with bringing large volumes of feedstock to one location.
It seems that size and scale of bioenergy projects will depend on the conversion technology,
feedstock availability, transportation costs, and other related factors. No one size or scale can
be recommended for the region, as research is necessary on a case-by-case basis.
Survey participants were asked the ideal scale they would like to see bioenergy
established as well as the maximum distance they thought feedstocks should be transported.
When cross tabulated and compared for a correlation, the chi-square value was 16.35, which
is statistically significant at p=0.05. However, it should be noted that more than 20% of the
expected frequencies were less than five, which may have contributed to some inaccurate
values. When looking at the graph, though, it does appear that a relationship exists between
maximum distance for transportation and scale. This suggests that scale will partially be
determined by the transportation costs and community opinions regarding those costs.
31
70
Percentage of Respondents
60
50
40
On-Site
30
Sector based
Regional
20
10
0
Less than 25 km
25-49 km
50-75 km
More than 75
km
Maximum Distance to Transport Feedstock
Figure 6. Correlation between maximum distances to transport feedstocks vs. scale of facilities
based on survey results
3.3 Developing a Social License in the Northern Rivers Region
3.3.1 Community Awareness
The survey results indicate that there is some knowledge, but not extensive
knowledge regarding bioenergy. When asked how they would rate their own knowledge of
bioenergy, 64% of respondents indicated that they had some knowledge of bioenergy. A
smaller number, only 23%, said they had extensive knowledge.
Table 2. Community knowledge regarding bioenergy based on self-rating
Knowledge Level
Never heard of it
Little Knowledge
Some Knowledge
Extensive Knowledge
Percentage of Respondents (%)
0
14
64
23
While there is some knowledge, a majority of the interviewees believed that there was low
community awareness. Fourteen interviewees reported low community awareness, while only
five claimed that community awareness was high. Dr. Graeme Palmer specifically stated that
32
people do not understand what bioenergy really is because a lot of the information currently
circulating the community is incorrect (2015, pers. comm.). Jo Immig supported this claim as
well stating,
If you talk to the average person about bioenergy then they probably just think about
burning trees, which they’ll have a concern about. They may also know about biofuel
crops because that’s been big in other countries, and they would have concerns about
that too (2015, pers. comm.).
Bioenergy is clearly more than just burning trees and creating biofuel, so these
misconceptions must be corrected. This suggests that a strong education component is
necessary to develop bioenergy appropriately.
3.3.2 Redefining Bioenergy
Before pursuing a social license for bioenergy, the term “bioenergy” needs to be more
clearly defined. As several interviewees commented, bioenergy is a very broad term and
encompasses many feedstocks and conversion methods. Because some feedstocks and
conversion methods have received preliminary acceptance, while others have been rejected,
the term bioenergy needs to have a more specific and explicit definition tailored to the
Northern Rivers Region. An anonymous interviewee suggested that bioenergy needed to
receive a “rebranding” to make it more contemporary and dispel any misconceptions. The
best way to give bioenergy a new name is to assess what feedstocks and technologies are
feasible for this Region, so that bioenergy can be advertised as such; this way, people will
know exactly what to expect. While one anonymous interviewee suggested simplifying the
definition to make it more comprehendible to the general public, Kristen Den Exter warned
that getting too general was not a good idea either because it creates the problem of having a
definition that is too vague (2015, pers. comm.). When redefining bioenergy, there needs to
be a balance between specificity and simplicity.
3.3.3 What Constitutes a Social License?
As certain aspects of bioenergy are explored and researched, it is important to develop
a social license. As a region that is especially environmentally conscious, it is important that
the community is accepting of new energy sources. An anonymous researcher stated, “This
area has a very specific set of values and they want to see things done properly. People are
inherently suspicious of new developments” (2015, pers. comm.). This is just one of the
reasons why community engagement is so important. One of the major themes in developing
a social license that several interviewees discussed was transparency throughout the entire
process. This aspect was also emphasized in Hall’s study of developing a social license for
33
wind energy in Australia (2014). Furthermore, decision-making should involve active
community engagement. Hogan Gleeson clarified that a social license “identifies all the
stakeholders, not just the big players and utilizes their skills and experiences to bring about a
genuinely integrated solution” (2015, pers. comm.). In terms of community engagement,
Dailan Pugh explained that the community needs to know exactly what is being proposed and
how the plan will be executed, so that they have enough information to make an educated
decision (2015, pers. comm.). Thinking about bioenergy specifically, Brian Restall
emphasized, “The key…to develop a social license for biomass is that the feedstock truly
needs to be a waste product from another industry…if it’s not it will be difficult to make the
case” (2015, pers. comm.). Getting the social license will most likely involve conducting
further surveys with the community and holding forums and workshops to get a more in
depth understanding of the community’s opinions (Immig, 2015, pers. comm.). Immig further
characterized a social license as a grassroots, democratic tool (2015, pers. comm.) and an
anonymous researcher described it as a deliberative democracy process. These descriptions of
a social license are similar to those described in a study of CSG in the Northern Rivers
Region (Luke, Lloyd, Boyd & Den Exter, 2013).
One of the main reasons that the CSG industry was rejected in this region was
because it failed to get a social license. However, the events that occurred surrounding CSG
can teach us a lot about how to proceed with bioenergy. According to an anonymous
researcher, Metgasco tried to convince the community that CSG was a good thing, but even
though the community rejected this, the industry tried to push forward anyway. This was the
first mistake. Kristin Den Exter explained that community engagement does not necessarily
result in a social license. There needs to be community acceptance as well as engagement
(2015, pers. comm.) Hall notes in her study of social licenses that there are different levels of
approval, supporting the claim that there needs to be acceptance as well as engagement
(2014, p. 224). Metgasco initially had a social license; they advertised their industry as green
and a good alternative to coal. At first, the community supported their efforts (Den Exter,
2015, pers. comm.). However, once they learned of the negative impacts that were occurring
in Queensland, the community changed their opinions and withdrew the social license (Den
Exter, 2015, pers. comm.). Metgasco went ahead with operations regardless. This also
highlights another theme: social licenses are not permanent and are constantly changing. Hall
also came to a similar conclusion in her research (2014, p. 305); other previous studies also
came to this conclusion. “Given the push back on CSG, I think whatever technology you use
for bioenergy it must have social, environmental, and social credibility” (Anonymous
34
interviewee, 2015, pers. comm.). In order to achieve this, there needs to be a major
educational component so that the public can make an educated decision.
3.3.4 Public Education
In order to allow the community to make the best decision, a major educational
campaign needs to be executed. In addition to the claims about low community awareness,
five interviewees specifically mentioned that bioenergy was complex, contributing to further
misinformation. Brian Restall explained that bioenergy is a difficult concept to understand
because it is not as tangible or visually comprehendible as solar or wind energy (2015, pers.
comm.). Jo Immig’s organization, the National Toxics Network, explains bioenergy by
dividing it into two categories: hot and cool technologies. This separates anaerobic digestion
from combustion and pyrolysis (2015, pers. comm.) and is a good example of how bioenergy
can be simplified and better understood. Michael Qualmann, as well as other interviewees
and survey participants, suggested that bioenergy could be better understood if pilot plants
and other demonstrations are established in the region (2015, pers. comm.). This will allow
community members to see bioenergy for themselves. For example, this is where the
anaerobic digester at Nimbin Valley Dairy has potential- as a demonstration for the
community. The educational aspect needs to also show how bioenergy aligns with other
community values, such as climate change mitigation and reducing reliance on foreign
energy, as well as highlight economic advantages (Anonymous interviewee, 2015, pers.
comm.).
In terms of physically reaching the community, a multitude of networks were
suggested, ranging from social media to newspapers and radio to documentaries. Almost
every interviewee explained that media played almost no role in educating them about
bioenergy; they further stated that they rarely see stories about bioenergy in the media.
However, they also noted that media was a great tool to educate the community. Therefore,
bioenergy should be better integrated into the mainstream media as solar energy has been.
Many interviewees also suggested forums, workshops, educational pamphlets, and door
knocking to increase awareness.
The educational campaign should also target specific populations. To reach the largest
number of people, it would be productive to target the “loudest” or most influential people in
the community. This supports the Amoeba Model, which suggests targeting change agents
and transformers to promote a campaign (Bragg, 2015). Many interviewees also suggested
targeting the agricultural sector because they will have a major role in the development of
both the social license and the industry; they will provide a majority of the feedstocks. If the
35
farmers are not well educated, bioenergy will never receive a social license nor will it move
forward.
3.3.5 Government’s Role
In addition to an educational campaign, the government will play a large role in the
development of the bioenergy industry. Several interviewees indicated that government has a
responsibility to provide funding and financial incentives. Troy Green explained that like any
other new industry, the government will need to assist with initial capital costs through tax
breaks, incentives, and rebates (2015, pers. comm.). Kevin Trustum also suggested that the
government could help with electricity sales because they have some control over that (2015,
pers. comm.). The government should also develop strong policies to help regulate the
industry, setting specific mandates and rules regarding what, where, and how bioenergy is
created, as suggested by Hogan Gleeson. Furthermore, these compliance regulations must be
long-term and consistent (2015, pers. comm.). The decision-makers and government officials
need to have an active role in both the development of the social license and the development
of the industry. While government is an important avenue, Thomas O’Reilly also pointed out
that while “community engagement should be done through appropriate levels of
government, businesses are very visible to the community…and therefore have an obligation
to the community to support [education] and production [of bioenergy]” (2015, pers. comm.).
Therefore, businesses have an important role to play too, especially those that will be directly
involved in the bioenergy industry.
3.3.6 Next Steps and Future Work
There is a lot of work that must be done before a social license can be developed. A
three-phased campaign needs to be launched. An extensive feasibility study should be
conducted to assess the feasible feedstocks and associated conversion technologies. Once the
potential options are better understood, a focus group should be formed to create a proposal
for the community that explains exactly what will be developed and pursued in the Northern
Rivers Region. Based on comments made and attitudes expressed by various interviewees,
there is a lot of mistrust between environmental organizations and the industry. Several
interviewees received a majority of their knowledge about bioenergy from industry and
personal experiences, so the industry certainly has a lot to offer. Chris Connors, the Chief
Executive of NSW Sugar, expressed interest in getting people together to talk with the sugar
industry about how bioenergy should proceed (2015, pers. comm.). At the same time, the
environmental organizations have expressed legitimate concerns that need to be considered as
well. These two groups should be brought together, along with scientists, economists, policy
36
makers, and general community members, to form the focus group. A study conducted by
Ison et al. (2012) on the future of energy skills in the North Coast region also emphasized the
importance of bringing various stakeholders together. The proposal should explain potential
benefits, risks, and unknowns.
Before presenting this to the community, the education campaign should be executed,
so that when the proposal is presented to the community, they understand exactly what is
being proposed. The third aspect of the campaign is government and industry involvement;
both need to be on board before proceeding to the social license. These are the next steps for
bioenergy in the Northern Rivers Region. Once this has been accomplished, community
perceptions can be reassessed and a social license can be developed.
37
4. Conclusion
A lot of work must be done before a social license for bioenergy can actually be
developed. Bioenergy is such a broad term, and simply developing a social license for
bioenergy will not work. More extensive feasibility studies should be conducted to determine
the seasonal availability of feedstocks and conversion technologies because these are
insufficiently detailed for the Northern Rivers Region. Economic viability must be factored in
with availability, as well as the entire life cycle of the feedstocks, including transportation
costs. Once it has been determined what is available and feasible for the region, I suggest that
the Sustain Energy Working Group (a part of Sustain Northern Rivers) take responsibility to
form a focus group to create an explicit proposal detailing exactly what the community can
expect to be developed. The focus group should include participants from industry,
environmental groups, academics, economists, politicians, and interested community
members. This proposal should cover feedstocks, their quantity, the conversion process, and
necessary regulations.
Based on preliminary data, crop residues and livestock wet waste were the most
accepted feedstocks in the Region. Forest waste from plantations should not be explored as
an option until further research and assessment has been conducted; native forestry waste
should not be canvassed at all because it received low acceptance from the community. As
for conversion technologies, anaerobic digestion was the most widely accepted by both
survey participants and interviewees. Therefore, this should be the primary conversion
technology explored. Because combustion has already been established in the region, further
analysis should be conducted to assess community acceptance and availability of feedstocks
to determine if operations should be expanded. The proposal created by the focus group
should take these results into consideration.
Education needs to be a major component of this process, so that the community can
make an informed decision about how to proceed, since the survey showed that community
awareness is relatively low. Additionally, a lot of misconceptions currently exist about
bioenergy, partly because of its broad definition. The educational campaign needs to dispel
any myths and clarify the different forms of bioenergy, so that when a proposal is released
the community knows exactly what is being covered. All major media sources should be
utilized as well as forums, workshops, and pamphlets. This campaign should target both the
general public as well as potential stakeholders that will have direct involvement in the
industry, such as the macadamia industry and farmers. Workshops should be held to
specifically bring these groups together to potentially create cooperatives and agreements.
38
A major part of the educational component is creating demonstration plants or pilot
plants so that the public can more tangibly comprehend what bioenergy is. This is why the
Nimbin Valley Dairy anaerobic digester is so important. While it is clear that actually
building a digester on a farm requires a lot of technical and labor intensive research, getting
the measurements and feedstock inputs correct is vital to ensure that the plant runs properly
and efficiently. Because there seems to be preliminary acceptance for anaerobic digestion,
these pilot plants can be established before a social license is officially recognized. Once the
digester is actually built, it will serve as an important resource and model for the rest of the
bioenergy industry in the area.
A campaign should also target the decision-makers and politicians, since they will be
responsible for providing funding, incentives and regulations. Both interviewees and survey
participants indicated that the government would need to play a large role in the
establishment of the industry just as they’ve done for other industries in the past.
Once these steps have been completed, a social license can be developed. Because all
of these processes will have involved the community from the beginning, this final step to
receive a social license just needs to reaffirm community acceptance. This process requires
transparency, active community engagement, and cooperation. If any parts of the proposal are
rejected, the decision must be respected or there will be backlash from the community. If a
social license is developed, the bioenergy industry can proceed. However, it is important that
the social license is reevaluated and renewed as new information emerges and new opinions
are formed.
A bioenergy industry has the potential to be very successful in the Northern Rivers
Region if a social license is developed correctly and the community is heard and involved. If
any of these processes are abused or neglected, the industry will encounter barriers to
operation, as well as potentially hurt other industries and raise further environmental
concerns. However, if executed properly, it has the potential to bring many benefits to the
region, including landfill diversion, greenhouse gas emission reductions, decreased reliance
on fossil fuels, local job opportunities, and increased local energy security. I believe that the
process outlined above is a necessary precondition to successfully developing a bioenergy
industry in the Northern Rivers Region.
39
5. References:
Ballina Shire Council. (n.d.) Proposed Biochar Facility. Retrieved April 7, 2015, from
www.ballina.nsw.gov.au
Bice. S. (2014). What gives you a social licence? An exploration of the social licence to
operate in the Australian mining industry. Resources, 3(1), 62-80.
doi:10.3390/resources3010062
Bragg, E. (2015). The Amoeba Model. Lecture presented as part of Social Change Workshop,
24-25 March 2015. SIT Study Abroad, Byron Bay, NSW.
Clean Energy Council. (2008a). Australian Bioenergy Roadmap: Setting the direction for
biomass in stationary energy to 2020 and beyond. Retrieved March 27, 2015, from
http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resourcecentre/reports/previous-reports.html
Cruickshank, P. (2015). Community Engagement, Office of Environment and Heritage
NSW. Personal Communication via face-to-face interview, 7th April 2015.
Diesendorf, M. (2007). Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy. Sydney, NSW:
University of New South Wales Press.
Dillard, J., Dujon, V., & King, M. (Eds.). (2010). Understanding the social dimension of
sustainability. In R. Heinberg & D. Lerch (Eds.) The post carbon reader: managing
the 21st century’s sustainability crisis. (pp. 21-22). Boonville: Watershed Media
Press. (Reprinted from Understanding the social dimension of sustainability, by J.
Dillard, V. Dujon, & M. King, 2009, Routledge.)
Eswarlal, V., Vasudevan, G., Dey, P., & Vasudevan, P. (2014). Role of community
acceptance in sustainable bioenergy projects in India. Energy Policy, 73, 333-343.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.019
Hall, N. (2014). Can the "social licence to operate" concept enhance engagement and increase
acceptance of renewable energy? A case study of wind farms in Australia. Social
Epistemology, 28(3-4), 219-238. doi:10.1080/02691728.2014.922636
Hall, N., Lacey, J., Carr-Cornish, S., & Dowd, A. (2015). Social licence to operate:
Understanding how a concept has been translated into practice in energy industries.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 301-310. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.020
Heinberg, R. (2010). What is sustainability? In R. Heinberg & D. Lerch (eds.), The Post
Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st century’s sustainability crises. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Ison, N., Mcgee, C., Tansley, S., Murta, J., Milne, G. and Harris, S. Future Energy Skills for
the North Coast. (2012). Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology
Sydney and J&S Learningwork prepared for Regional Development Australia –
Northern Rivers on behalf of Sustain Northern Rivers.
40
Ison, N., Wynne, L., Rutovitz, J., Jenkins, C., Cruickshank, P. and Luckie, K. (2013) NSW
North Coast Bioenergy Scoping Study, Report by the Institute for Sustainable Futures
to RDA- Northern Rivers on behalf of Sustain Northern Rivers.
Luke, H., Lloyd, D., Boyd, W., & den Exter, K. (2013). Unconventional Gas Development:
Why a Regional Community Said No- A Report of Findings from the 2012 Lismore
City Council Election Poll and Exit Poll Survey (New South Wales). Geographical
Research, 52(3), 263-279. doi: 10.1111/1745-5871.12071
Meyer, N. (2014). Northern Rivers Community Bio-hub (Growing Community Energy Grant
Application). Available from Sustain Northern Rivers, Lismore, NSW.
Meyer, N. (2015). Manager, Nimbin Neighbourhood and Information Centre. Personal
communication via face-to-face interview, 15 April 2015.
North Coast Energy Forum. (2014). Social License for Bioenergy. Retrieved March 29, 2015,
from http://ncef.net.au/2014-ncef-outcomes/social-licence/
NSW Government Department of Trade and Investment. (2014). Progressing the NSW
Renewable Energy Action Plan: Annual Report. Sydney: NSW Trade and Investment
Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/537197/NS
W-Renewable-Energy-Action-Plan-Annual-Report-2014.pdf
NSW Premier and Cabinet. (2006). The Great Opportunity: 25% Renewable Energy for
NSW. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from
http://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/data/assets/file/0007/14101/TotalEnvironmentCentreNatu
reConservationCouncilGreenpeaceAttachment2.pdf
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. (2014). Cogeneration Feasibility Guide.
Retrieved March 29, 2015, from
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/business/140685-cogenerationfeasibility-guide.pdf
Origin Energy. (2015). Energy in Australia. Retrieved April 19, 2015, from
http://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/about-energy/energy-in-australia.html
Paragreen, N., & Woodley, A. (2013). Social licence to operate and the coal seam gas
industry: What can be learnt from already established mining operations?. Rural
Society, 23(1), 46-59. doi:10.5172/rsj.2013.23.1.46
Regional Development Australia- Northern Rivers. (2011). Northern Rivers Food Industry
Profile: Final Report. Retrieved March 27, 2015, from
http://rdanorthernrivers.org.au/resources/document-library/
Rollings, M. (2014). Collating Information from the North Coast Energy Forum: A
Practicum with the Office of Environment and Heritage (Independent Study Project
Report). Available from SIT Study Abroad, Byron Bay, NSW.
41
Sustainability Victoria. (n.d.). Bioenergy resource in Victoria. Retrieved April 29, 2015, from
http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/publications-and-research/knowledgearchive/bioenergy
Taylor, P., & Quirk, R. (2010). Producing Biochar on Sugar Cane Farms: Industry Benefits,
Local and Global Implications In P. Taylor (Ed.), The Biochar Revolution:
Transforming Agriculture and Environment. (pp. 295-312). Mt. Evelyn, Victoria:
Global Publishing Group.
Waste Management Association of Australia. (2005). Sustainability Guide for Energy from
Waste Projects and Proposals. Retrieved April 16, 2015, from
http://www.ecowaste.com.au/issues.html
Wilson, P. (2015). Co-owner, Nimbin Valley Dairy. Personal communication via face-to-face
interview, 17 April 2015.
5.1 Social License Interviews:
Connors, C. (2015). Chief Executive Officer, NSW Sugar. Personal communication via
phone interview, 23rd April 2015.
Coyne, D. (2015). Coordinator, Bio-Charfest. Personal communication via phone interview,
1st May 2015.
Den Exter, K. (2015). Sustainability Partnerships and Community Engagement, Southern
Cross University. Personal communication via phone interview, 27th April 2015.
Gleeson, H. (2015). Director, Urban Ecological Systems. Personal communication via faceto-face interview, 24th April 2015.
Green, T. (2015). General Manager, Tweed Shire Council. Personal communication via
phone interview, 27th April 2015.
Immig, J. (2015). Coordinator, National Toxics Network. Personal communication via faceto-face interview, 24th April 2015.
Kaye, J. (2015). Member, NSW Legislative Council. Personal communication via phone
interview, 30th April 2015.
Murphy, G. (2015). Executive Director, Infrastructure Services, Lismore City Council.
Personal communication via phone interview, 1st May 2015.
Nichols, D. (2015). Researcher, Forest Research Centre, Southern Cross University. Personal
communication via face-to-face interview, 21st April 2015.
O’Reilly, T. (2015). Sustainability Coordinator, Stone and Wood Beer. Personal
communication via face-to-face interview, 20th April 2015.
Palmer, C. (2015). Condong Mill, NSW Sugar. Personal communication via phone interview
and email, 27th April 2015.
42
Palmer, G. (2015). Researcher, Forest Research Centre, Southern Cross University. Personal
communication via face-to-face interview, 21st April 2015.
Pugh, D. (2015). Co-Founder, North East Forest Alliance. Personal communication via faceto- face interview, 23rd April 2015.
Qualmann, M. (2015). Electrical and Electronic Engineer, Powersmart Energy Efficiency.
Personal communication via face-to-face interview, 21st April 2015.
Reid, G. (2015). Member, Tweed Climate Action Now. Personal communication via phone
interview, 20th April 2015.
Restall, B. (2015). Chief Executive, Cape Byron Power. Personal communication via phone
interview, 14th April 2015.
Robson, P. (2015). Hardwood Engineering Manager, Boral Timber. Personal communication
via phone interview, 22nd April 2015.
Trustum, K. (2015). Commercial Services Coordinator- Waste, Airport and Cemeteries,
Lismore City Council. Personal communication via phone interview, 28th April 2015.
Walker, J. (2015). General Manager, Richmond Valley Council. Personal communication via
phone interview, 22nd April 2015.
Vancov, T. (2015). Researcher in 2nd Generation Biofuels, NSW Department of Primary
Industries. Personal communication via phone interview, 13th April 2015.
43
Appendix A: Anonymous Online Survey
Bioenergy in the Northern Rivers Region
You are being invited to participate in a research study titled Assessing Community Support
and Feasibility for Bioenergy in the Northern Rivers Region. The purpose of this research
study is to assess community acceptance of bioenergy and the tools needed to develop a
social licence to operate for bioenergy. This project is being conducted with Office of
Environment and Heritage NSW and Sustain Northern Rivers. If you agree to take part in this
study, you will be asked to complete an on-line survey. This survey will ask about your
knowledge of bioenergy, your perceived benefits and barriers, and the tools you need to make
an informed decision on the potential for bioenergy use in the Northern Rivers Region and it
will take you approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. Risks associated with this research
study are minimal to none; however, as with any on-line related activity the risk of a breach
of confidentiality is always possible. To the best of our ability your answers in this study will
remain confidential. In order to minimize the risks, data collected will be stored on an
encrypted file on our personal computer, which is locked. Identifiable information (i.e. name,
address) will not be collected, your email address will not be linked to your survey results,
and all participants will remain anonymous. Your participation in this study is completely
voluntary and you can withdraw at any time. You are free to skip any question that you
choose. By clicking “I agree” below you are indicating that you are at least 18 years old,
have read and understood this consent form and agree to participate in this research
study. Please print a copy of this page for your records.
 I agree
 I do not agree
If I do not agree Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey
How important is the topic of renewable energy being incorporated into the political
conversation to you?




Not Very Important
Somewhat Important
Important
Extremely Important
Please rank the following renewable energy sources that you would want to see installed on a
commercial scale for the Northern Rivers Region (with 1= top choice):
______ Solar Energy: Radiant light and heat from the sun harnessed using a range of everevolving technologies such as solar heating, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal energy, solar
architecture and artificial photosynthesis
______ Bioenergy: Energy produced from biomass- material produced by photosynthesis or
is an organic by-product from a waste stream (i.e. agricultural waste or animal waste)
______ Wind Energy: Generating electricity from the naturally occurring power of the wind;
wind turbines capture wind energy within the area swept by their blades.
44
How would you rate your knowledge of bioenergy? Bioenergy is defined as energy produced
from biomass- material produced by photosynthesis or is an organic by-product from a waste
stream (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 128).




Never heard of it
Little Knowledge
Some Knowledge
Extensive Knowledge
Which of following forms of bioenergy have you heard of? Check all that apply.
 Combustion: the direct burning of biomass material to produce heat and/or electricity
 Pyrolysis: heating biomass in a de-oxygenated environment to produce methane and
biochar
 Anaerobic Digestion: the decomposition of organic material in an environment without
oxygen to produce methane and a liquid fertilizer known as digestate
 Torrefaction: a thermal process that involves heating the biomass to temperatures
between 250 and 300 degrees Celsius in an inert atmosphere. When biomass is heated at
such temperatures, the moisture evaporates and various low-calorific components
contained in the biomass are driven out.
Of the methods of conversion above, which method would you prefer to see on a commercial
scale in the Northern Rivers Region?




Combustion
Pyrolysis
Anaerobic Digestion
Torrefaction
Which of the following feedstocks would you support to be used for bioenergy in the
Northern Rivers Region? Check all that apply.
 Agricultural Residues: Field residues from harvesting or growing (i.e. bagasse, rice hulls,
nut shells, etc.)
 Energy Crops: Crops grown specifically for energy extraction (i.e. Woody short-rotation
coppice harvested every 2-4 years, then regrown from the stump, energy plantations,
annual crops including sugar cane, cassava, sunflowers, soybeans, etc.)
 Forestry residues and by-products from plantations: Harvest residues and thinnings from
forest management, sawmill or wood processing wastes (i.e. sawdust and off-cuts)
 Forestry residues and by-products from native timber forests: Harvest residues and
thinnings from forest management, sawmill or wood processing wastes (i.e. sawdust and
off-cuts)
 Wet Wastes: Liquid wastes containing organic matter in a dilute form (i.e. intensive
livestock production, meat processing, food and drink production, pulp and paper
production, municipal sewage treatment)
 Municipal Waste: Organic matter from household rubbish (i.e. food scraps, garden waste)
 Commercial Waste: Organic material from commercial and industrial sites (i.e. solid
wastes, liquid wastes, oily wastes)
 Other ____________________
45
On what scale is bioenergy most appropriate?
 On-Site: a company with a large bioenergy resource installs a bioenergy conversion plant
on-site to turn this resource into useful energy for sale or use
 Sector based: organisations from the same industry sector (i.e. saw mills or chicken
farms) are in close proximity to one another and jointly develop a bioenergy facility, and
send all of their bioenergy resources to that facility
 Regional: a bioenergy facility is developed in a region, fueled by a range of compatible
but different bioenergy feedstocks (i.e. plantation thinnings, camphor laurel, and
macadamia shells) that are found in that region
What is the maximum distance you think biomass should be transported to reach the
processing plant?




Less than 25 km
25-49 km
50-75 km
More than 75 km
What do you think are the benefits of bioenergy (Choices were selected based on previous
studies)? Please check all that apply.














Reduced greenhouse gas emissions
Reduce reliance on fossil fuels
Improve salinity problems in the soil
Job opportunities
Increase the reliability and diversity of electricity
Local energy source
Landfill diversion
Decreased odor
Local, organic fertilizer
Improve biodiversity
Energy source that can be stored and timed to meet demand
Local energy security
Reduced electricity cost
Other ____________________
46
What are some concerns you have regarding bioenergy (Choices were selected based on
previous studies)? Please check all that apply.














Increased emissions from combustion
Increased odor
Trucking feedstocks long distances to the processing plant
Fear of big business control of the industry
Plants are visually unappealing
NIMBY (Not in my Backyard)
Cost of investment
Distrust of regulatory authorities
Some feedstocks are seasonal
Feedstocks can be costly to collect
Increased threats to native forests and biodiversity
Complex regulation
Extraction and conversion by-products (i.e. digestate produced from anaerobic digestion)
Other ____________________
If you want to further explain any of the above concerns that you have, please do so here:
What tools or resources do you think the community needs to increase understanding and
acceptance of bioenergy?
Do you have any other comments you wish to make?
In what town, city, or shire do you currently reside?
What is your gender?




Male
Female
Other
Prefer not to answer
What is your age?




18-24
25-39
40-64
65+
What is the highest level of education you have received? If you are currently enrolled in
school, please select the highest degree received.






Some high school
High School certificate or the equivalent
Vocational/technical certificate
Some university
Undergraduate (B.A) Degree
Post-Graduate Degree or higher
47
Appendix B: Script for Open-Ended Interview Questions
1. What do you know about renewable energy?
o Do you think it’s important to develop more sources of renewable energy? If so, why?
o What types of renewable energy do you know about?
o Which are most promising for the North Coast region of NSW?
2. Where did you first hear about bioenergy?
o From which types of sources have most of your knowledge on bioenergy come?
o Were media stories important?
3. What do you know about the different feedstocks (agricultural waste, green waste,
organic waste, forest/timber waste, agricultural crops)?
o What are the pros/cons of each feedstock option?
o Which feedstock options are you in favor of? Are there some that should be used over
others?
4. What do you know about the different methods of bioenergy (anaerobic digestion,
combustion, pyrolysis)
o What are the benefits of combustion?
o What are the drawbacks?
o What are the benefits of anaerobic digestion?
o What are the drawbacks of anaerobic digestion?
o What are the benefits of pyrolysis?
o What are the drawbacks of pyrolysis?
5. What do you see as the perceived benefits of bioenergy for this region? (the list below
will not be included in the interviewee version, but will be used for me to probe if
necessary)
o Environmental- greenhouse gas emissions, odor, reliance on fossil fuels, landfill
diversion, fertilizer from the digestate
o Social- local energy, community engagement, increased social cohesion
o Economic- jobs, reduced energy prices, sustainable energy
6. Since the method used depends on the feedstocks available, what feedstocks do you think
are most available for use in the Northern Rivers Region?
7. Which method of extraction is most suitable for the region?
8. What are some of the concerns you have about establishing bioenergy in the region?
o Environmental- emissions from combustion, odor, trucking, NIMBY, visually
unappealing
o Social- fear of big business
o Economic- expensive investment, distrust of regulatory authorities
9. How aware do you think the community is on the issue of bioenergy in the region?
48
10. Do you think there is wide community acceptance for bioenergy in the region?
o Is one method preferred?
o On what scale? (On site, sector based, regional)
11. What is your understanding of the idea of a Social Licence to Operate?
12. What tools are needed to overcome these barriers?
o Education?
o Funding?
o Increased community engagement?
13. What modes of communication would be most effective?
14. Is there a specific audience or part of the population we should target?
15. Expert specific questions:
o For farmers: Have you ever considered using bioenergy on your property?
 Are you aware of federal government support for storing carbon on farms?
o For the industry: How long have you been producing bioenergy? How much do you
produce?
o For Lock the Gate/CSG related people: Do you think there would be support within
Lock the Gate to help develop a social licence for bioenergy? If so how could Lock
the gate or the movement generally contribute to this?
16. How can the Lock the Gate movement serve as a model to developing a social licence for
bioenergy?
o Is it detrimental? How?
17. What are the next steps to develop a social licence for bioenergy?
18. Any other comments?
Thank you for talking with me today. May I follow-up with you later if needed? Please
contact me if you have any further questions.
49
Appendix C: Interview Schedule
Monday, April 13, 2015:
 Tony Vancov
Tuesday, April 14, 2015:
 Brian Restall
Monday, April 20, 2015:
 Greg Reid
 Anonymous Interviewee
 Thomas O’Reilly
Tuesday, April 21, 2015:
 Graeme Palmer
 Doland Nichols
 Michael Qualmann
Wednesday, April 22, 2015:
 Peter Robson
 John Walker
Thursday, April 23, 2015:
 Anonymous Interviewee
 Chris Connors
 Dailan Pugh
Friday, April 24, 2015:
 Hogan Gleeson
 Jo Immig
Monday, April 27, 2015:
 Cam Palmer
 Troy Green
 Kristin Den Exter
Tuesday, April 28, 2015:
 Anonymous Interviewee
 Kevin Trustum
Thursday, April 30, 2015:
 John Kaye
 Anonymous Interviewee
Friday, May 1, 2015:
 Don Coyne
 Gary Murphy
50
Appendix D: Interview Raw Data
Preferred Conversion Method
Combustion
Anaerobic Digestion
Pyrolysis
No Comment
No Clear Preference
Specifically Against Combustion
Number of Interviewees
1
4
3
5
8
6
Key Words Referenced in the Interview
Base Load
Complex
Life Cycle Analysis
Transportation Costs
Transparency
Misinformation
Economic Viability
Capital Investment
Number of Interviewees
5
5
6
13
3
3
12
9
Awareness Level
Public Aware
Public Unaware
Number of Interviewees
5
19
Feedstock Options
Agricultural Waste
Municipal Green Waste
Timber/Forest Waste
Energy Crops
For Camphor Laurel
Against Camphor Laurel
Specifically Against Timber Waste
Number of Interviewees
15
7
10
3
5
4
5
51