Full-scale implementation of SRC-systems:
Assessment of Technical and Non-Technical Barriers
IEA Bioenergy Task 30
High Priority Area 3
Alker, G., Bruton, C. and Richards, K.
TV Energy, Liberty House, New Greenham Park, Newbury, Berks, RG19 6HS
This report has been prepared for IEA Bioenergy Task 30.
Prepared by:
Gill Alker, Charlotte
Bruton & Keith Richards,
TV Energy
Approved by:
Keith Richards
Managing Director TV
Energy
2
Executive Summary
During the IEA Task 30 meeting in Denmark in 2001 a number of ‘high priority areas’
were identified for further investigation by task members. High Priority Area 3 called for
an investigation into the ‘Large-scale implementation of SRC systems: Assessment of
Technical and Non-Technical Barriers’.
The development of short rotation crops for energy generation has been slow in the
majority of member countries. The reasons behind these delays have been discussed for
individual countries but there has been limited assimilation of this information or
comparison between the experiences of different countries.
The purpose of this investigation was to identify the technical and non-technical barriers
to the full-scale implementation of short rotation crops for energy production across all
IEA member countries. By identifying the barriers, comparisons could be made and
recommendations for joint working between member countries to work towards solutions
to the existing barriers could be suggested. This work has drawn on experience of
countries that have had greater progress in this field and has identified lessons that can be
learnt from these countries and areas for replication.
Initially each member country of Task 30 was contacted and a preliminary list of
technical and non-technical barriers was requested. Using this information, a skeleton
outline of the final report was produced and this was circulated to all members. The
purpose of this second consultation was to allow each of those who had not already
contributed to the work an opportunity to put forward any barriers that had not been
identified. It also served to provide an opportunity for all members to examine the
barriers that had been put forward, to assess whether they were subject to the same
barriers as other countries and to allow them to offer examples of where barriers had been
overcome. In all, four of the seven countries directly contributed to the study. These
were the UK, Sweden, Brazil and Australia.
A literature review of existing information relating to the technical and non-technical
barriers arising from the large-scale implementation of SRC across participating Task 30
Member countries was carried out through personal correspondence and also on the
world-wide web
The study identified that most of the technical barriers could broadly be grouped into
three overarching technically-based categories; unfamiliar fuel barriers, unfamiliar crop
barriers and underdeveloped technologies. The first of these categories, included barriers
which were related to the different fuel characteristics of SRC compared to coal and the
effects these differences had on transportation impacts and costs, fuel handling and the
performance of the conversion technologies, the second included barriers which related to
uncertainty over the crops nutritional and water requirements, effects on biodiversity,
optimum conditions for maximising yields and the strong need for breeding initiatives.
Finally, the study reported that considerable work was still needed in many member
countries on the development of conversion, planting and harvesting technologies.
3
Unlike the technical barriers, non-technical barriers could not be easily categorised and
tended to be much more complex. Solutions to the barriers also tended to be less straight
forward and there were many opinions and perceptions, which following good quality
demonstration projects, have turned out to be misconceptions. For example, there is still
a considerable lack of knowledge of SRC amongst farmers in the UK. Following the
failure of the Arbre project, farmers have developed a rather negative perception towards
SRC and issues that are not real have been perpetuated, such as that SRC willow is
difficult to remove and that pests and diseases are uncontrollable. Negative perceptions
such as these tend to linger until they are proven incorrect. Often the only way to do this
is to repeatedly demonstrate the benefits of the technology until the negative perceptions
are erased.
The issues of competition were raised in relation to many aspects. Competition with nonrenewable technologies, not only for its utilisation for energy production, but also for
funding, research and development efforts. Competition of SRC with other biomass fuels
for bioenergy production and competition of SRC for land with other crops, particularly
food crops, were concerns. The development of new industries almost always raises
issues of competition, since it generally involves the replacement of existing technologies
and products.
The non-technical barriers most likely to cause on-going delays to implementation will be
related to government policies. Energy, planning, waste and farming policies are all
intricately linked in SRC energy production and changes in one area can have knock-on
effects in others. In addition, positive changes in policy are welcome in most respects,
but even with positive changes, when policy is changed too frequently, this can
undermine investor confidence and ultimately impact the outcome in a negative way.
Many of the other non-technical barriers could be explained by the youth of the industry
and the novelty of the approach to farming the crop and generating biomass power.
Those countries where SRC have been utilised for the longest time, seem to have
overcome many of the non-technical barriers that the less experienced countries are still
experiencing. Familiarity, time and the sharing of knowledge and experiences between
the experienced and the novices should allow most of these barriers to be overcome.
Because SRC is becoming successful in more than one country this suggests that there
are unlikely to be any non-technical barriers that cannot be overcome in all other
countries.
This report has highlighted areas where a lack of communication and sharing of
information is evident. For example, an issue raised by the US was a lack of
understanding of the optimum intra-field multiclonal distribution patterns, where this
subject has been researched at great length in Europe to great effect and is dictating what
combinations of species to plant for commercial crops in best practice guidance.
It would appear that in the majority of cases the technical barriers related to supply chain
and conversion technologies are on the verge of resolution. Conversion technologies are
becoming more advanced and development in the engineering field is on-going with
4
many commercial power generation plants in existence. However, it is the non-technical
barriers that appear to be the more obstructive and if anything being more pervasive.
Issues of disjointed legislation and guidelines from government, public misconceptions
and fear of an uncertain future will be the toughest obstacles requiring much effort in
lobbying and education.
5
Contents
1
2
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7
Research Activities ..................................................................................................... 8
2.1
Email Correspondence and Interviews ............................................................... 8
2.2
Literature Review................................................................................................ 8
3 Assessment of Technical Barriers to Full Scale Implementation of SRC for Energy 8
3.1
Technical barriers relating to fuel production ..................................................... 8
3.2
Technical barriers relating to the supply chain ................................................. 13
3.3
Technical barriers relating to conversion technologies .................................... 14
3.4
Summary of the assessment of technical barriers ............................................. 15
4 Assessment of Non-Technical Barriers to Full Scale Implementation of SRC for
Energy ............................................................................................................................... 15
4.1
Non-technical barriers relating to the entire SRC energy industry ................... 15
4.1.1
Research and development ....................................................................... 15
4.1.2
Policy ........................................................................................................ 16
4.1.3
Market ....................................................................................................... 18
4.1.4
Integration across sectors .......................................................................... 19
4.1.5
Public acceptance ...................................................................................... 20
4.2
Non-technical barriers relating to fuel production ............................................ 22
4.3
Non-Technical barriers relating to the supply chain ......................................... 25
4.4
Non-technical barriers relating to conversion technologies.............................. 25
4.5
Summary of the assessment of non-technical barriers ...................................... 26
5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 27
6 References ................................................................................................................. 28
6
1 Introduction
During the IEA Task 30 meeting in Denmark in 2001 a number of ‘high priority areas’
(HPAs) were identified by task members for further investigation. High Priority Area 3
was an investigation into the ‘Large-scale implementation of short rotation crops (SRC)
systems: Assessment of Technical and Non-Technical Barriers’. The development of
SRC for energy generation in the majority of member countries has been slow.
Alternative uses for SRC, such as phytoremediation, bioremediation and waste water
treatment have dominated the development of these crops, whereas energy production has
in many cases, not been a top priority.
The purpose of this investigation is to draw on the experiences of member states to
identify barriers, both technical and non-technical, to the full-scale implementation of
SRC for energy production. Each of the barriers described in this report has been
identified by member countries. The report describes and discusses the nature of the
barrier and where appropriate possible solutions have been suggested. In some cases
barriers, which are perceived to exist in one country, have been overcome in others,
which in turn identifies a lack of communication, particularly cross-continental, as
another barrier. The identification of barriers now gives Task 30 members the
opportunity to address them in their own particular country and environment. By
allocating levels of importance members can aim to resolve issues through lobbying,
education, improving communication links and research and development. The
information in this report also suggests that where countries have similar issues that need
addressing then encouragement for joint working and sharing of information should
begin.
The barriers to implementation identified in this work have been separated into technical
and non-technical types. Technical barriers for the purpose of this report are defined as
barriers that have the potential to be directly resolved through research and development.
Non-technical barriers are those related to social, economical, environmental and political
issues where R&D may help. In a number of situations determining whether the barrier
was technical or non-technical was problematic, because the two issues are often
inextricably linked. For example [6] reported that advanced biomass conversion
technologies require a greater period of successful demonstration to provide investor
confidence. In this case, the non-technical barrier, investor confidence, is linked to the
technical barrier, insufficient practical experience of the conversion technologies. In
cases where the technical or non-technical nature of the barrier was in question,
discretion was used to determine the overriding factor causing the barrier. In the example
above, the insufficient experience of the technology was considered to be the primary
cause, so the barrier was classed as technical.
7
2 Research Activities
2.1 Email Correspondence and Interviews
Initially each member country of Task 30 was contacted and a preliminary list of
technical and non-technical barriers was requested. Using this information, a skeleton
outline of the final report was produced and this was circulated to all members. The
purpose of this second consultation was to allow each of those who had not already
contributed to the work an opportunity to put forward any barriers that had not been
identified. It also served to provide an opportunity for all members to examine the
barriers that had been put forward, to assess whether they were subject to the same
barriers as other countries and to allow them to offer examples of where barriers had been
overcome. Four Country reps reposponded, Brazil, Sweden, Australia and the UK. The
Australian Country Representative chose to indicate not only the presence of the barrier,
but also its severity on a sliding scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating a very minor barrier and
5 indicating a critical barrier, singularly stopping development opportunities.
2.2 Literature Review
A literature review of existing information relating to the technical and non-technical
barriers arising from the large-scale implementation of SRC across participating Task 30
Member countries was carried out through personal correspondence and also on the
world-wide web
3 Assessment of Technical Barriers to Full Scale
Implementation of SRC for Energy
3.1 Technical barriers relating to fuel production
Location of Plantations
In comparison to other fuel types, woody biomass has a relatively low bulk density and
low calorific value (see Table 3.1), resulting in higher transport costs per unit energy
generated [6]. This barrier can be overcome by farming SRC locally to the plant, thereby
reducing transport distances and associated costs. Incentives can be introduced to
encourage farmers close to power stations to plant the crop by making grants conditional
on station proximity. For example the UKs’ Energy Crops Schemes Planting Grant
requires that new plantings of SRC are located within 10 miles of a small installation and
25 miles of a large installation.
Barrier: High transport costs due to fuel characteristics
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL

2-3
8
SWE
UK

USA
Table 3.1
Bulk density and Calorific Values of UK Coal and Willow Wood chip (Source: [12])
UK Coal (as received)
Calorific Value (GJ/t)
Bulk density (t/m3)
Willow wood chips
(as received)
11 – 19
0.40 – 0.55
31.5
0.86 – 0.94
There remains an incomplete understanding of the soil-site relationships for SRC crops in
certain areas [7]. The interactions between climate, soil-type, species and genotypes and
the influence these interactions have on yields have only been studied in-depth at a
limited number of locations, but work is on-going in many coutries. This barrier was
reported to be a problem for members in the United States, where information on cropsoil-site interactions in the North East and Midwest of the country is particularly lacking.
Site-soil factors may also explain the barrier reported by [6]; the relatively low potential
for energy crops in Scotland, where yields achieved to date have been lower than average
for the UK.
Barrier: Poor understanding of soil-site-productivity interactions
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
3
UK

USA

Planting
Also a barrier in the United States is the limited availability of planting stock on short
notice for organisations wishing to scale up [7]. This is particularly problematic where
the industry is in the early stages of development, when the market for planting stock has
not developed sufficiently for companies to invest in large-scale plantations for supplying
cuttings and the specialist machinery required to generate the planting stock.
Barrier: Limited availability of planting stock
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
1
SWE
UK
USA

The US also reported a lack of understanding of the optimum intra-field multiclonal
distribution patterns for maximising productivity and longevity [7]. Investigations into
the optimum method for mixing willow varieties have been carried out [16] to determine
whether planting in mono-varietal blocks or intimate mixtures has any effects on yield by
promoting pest resistance or increasing inter-varietal competition. This study concluded
that diverse intra-species mixtures of Salix spp. varieties help to reduce the impact of rust
and offer the most economically and environmentally acceptable method of rust control.
This barrier is unlikely to stop progress and work is ongoing in many countries to find
optimal mixtures of varieties for each location.
9
Barrier: Poor understanding of the optimal combination of varieties
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
3
UK
USA

Yields
In order to ensure on-going improvement of yields, pest and disease resistance, water and
nutrient use efficiencies and factors such as tree form, which can affect yields and harvest
efficiency, an ongoing genetics program and testing of the new varieties produced is an
important requirement. [7] and [8] report that the lack of a breeding programme in the
US and UK could have a significant effect on the sustainability, economics and future
success of SRC for energy production. In Australia it is anticipated that this issue would
be overcome as the industry develops through joint venture programs such as the
Australia Low Rainfall Tree Improvement Group [18].
Barrier: Lack of national breeding programmes
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
2
SWE
UK

USA

[10] and [18] reported that a significant barrier to implementation was that SRC yields
are not yet economical. While the cost of energy production is affected by yields, this is
just one of many factors which may be manipulated to alter the economics of energy
production using SRC. Other factors such as site preparation costs, transport costs,
efficiency of conversion technologies, in addition to legislative and market-driven factors
all combine to affect the competitiveness of SRC in the market-place. These other
factors will be discussed throughout this report and particularly in Section 4.1.
Barrier: Uneconomic yields
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
5
SWE
UK

USA
Harvesting
The barriers to implementation caused by mechanical harvesting operations included
ineffective and inefficient harvesting systems [7] and inconsistent chip sizes for different
end users [7]. This suggests that harvesting operations could benefit from further
development of harvesting equipment. However [2] reports that where a completely new
crop is developed, the harvesting requirements may be different and specialist equipment
may need to be developed for that crop. For example Eucalyptus SRC should be
harvested on a 4 to 5 year cycle. Eucalyptus coppice at that age generally has greater
diameter stems than can be harvested using a conventional SRC harvesting system, so it
is likely that a completely new harvesting system would be needed for eucalyptus SRC.
[18] reported that this is a significant issue that must be solved cost effectively to allow
for large scale plantings.
Barrier: Insufficiently developed harvesting equipment
10
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL

4
SWE
UK
USA

Harvest operations are often dependant on factors beyond farmers control, such as
weather and soil conditions and mechanical breakdowns. There is little flexibility for
these potential delays at power stations, where a constant supply of fuel is required. End
users therefore need to be able to accept and use wood biomass from a number of sources
[7] and sufficient storage facilities should be provided to buffer against harvesting delays.
Barrier: Mismatch in the constancy of supply and demand
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE

3
UK

USA

Crop cycle duration
The length of time between the initial planning stages, and the first harvest of woody
SRC crops is much longer than for most agricultural crops. For willow SRC, this lead
time ranges from 3 to 5 years and for Eucalyptus can be up to 8 years, resulting in a long
delays for farmers to receive a return on their investment and increased financial risk [7
and 10]. However these rotations are much shorter than used in conventional forestry,
which can be several decades. Energy grasses such as Miscanthus can be harvested
annually, thereby overcoming this barrier, however there are other barriers to uptake
associated with energy grasses that will be discussed in below.
Barrier: Period between investment and return is too long
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
2
UK

USA

Post-Harvest
A lack of understanding of the material properties of SRC fuels as they relate to efficient
size reduction in post harvesting operations was reported as a barrier in the US [7]. Here,
much of the SRC fuel is directed to co-firing, where the experience and skills of the
industry relate to coal properties, which are quite different from the properties of wood
chips. This issue can usually be overcome by testing and experimentation when the need
arises.
Barrier: Poor understanding of material properties of SRC fuels
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
2
Other Issues
11
UK
USA

For some annually harvested crops, the quantity of energy used for crop management can
sometimes be greater than the amount generated by the crop [9]. Systems where the
energy balance is not favourable require further development to reduce the energy
demand during crop production in order to gain greater environmental benefit from the
crop. It is important that the energy balance of crops is clearly understood and
communicated [18].
Barrier: Energy balance is not favourable
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL

4
SWE
UK
USA
There is a concern that repeated removal of large quantities of biomass from land will
result in the depletion of soil nutrients and degradation of soil [9]. Like any cropping
system, the amounts of nutrients removed from the soil by plant growth should be
replaced by inorganic or organic fertiliser applications. Fertiliser applications are often
controlled by environmental regulators on an annual basis to avoid over application and
contamination of water resources. However annual fertiliser applications to crops with
greater than annual growth cycles such as woody SRC crops are problematic because
there is limited accessibility to the crop to allow application after the first year of the
cropping cycle.
Barrier: Concern over depletion of soil nutrients
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL


3
SWE
UK

USA
A similar concern relates to the effect of converting large areas of agricultural land to
SRC production on the security of water resources, since SRC often has a higher
evapotranspiration rate than most agricultural crops [9]. Stephens, Hess and Knox [17]
investigated the potential effects of planting larger areas of willow SRC close to power
stations. They used a modelling approach to estimate the effect on hydraulically effective
rainfall of converting 2,500 ha of land to SRC in the 500,000 ha area located within a 40
mile radius of a hypothetical power station. The mean reduction in hydraulically
effective rainfall was estimated to be 0.5%. Compared with the natural variation in
hydraulically effective rainfall under wheat, which can vary with the range of 28% from
the mean value, this represents a relatively insignificant change in the availability of
water resources.
Barrier: Concern over depletion of water resources
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL


5
SWE
UK
USA
Some bioenergy crops are grown as monocultures, which when planted in large areas
could affect agricultural biodiversity. However, studies have shown that willow
cultivations enhance biodiversity compared with conventional agricultural crops and
12
monospecific conifer plantations [14]. In the UK, studies of the ARBRE plantations
showed that overall biodiversity, including ground vegetation, birds, butterflies and
invertebrates is improved [15]. Monocultures do however, tend to have lower natural
defence against pests and diseases and potentially require greater quantities of
agrochemicals to maintain the crops [9]. It is generally recommended that to improve
pest and disease resistance, diverse mixtures of varieties from different parentage should
be planted in preference to a strict monoculture wherever possible to maximise the
biodiversity within the crop.
Barrier: Concerns over biodiversity and effects on wildlife
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE


2
UK
USA
Where the species or varieties planted are not native to the area in which they are planted
there are concerns that there may be a lack of understanding of pollen or seed dispersal
from bioenergy plantings into natural habitats [7] particularly for invasive species.
Similarly, while genetic modification of bioenergy crops has not yet gained any
momentum, there are concerns that genetically engineered trees and crops will be
developed specifically for use for biomass energy supplies [9]. If this happens, the
concerns over seed or pollen dispersal into surrounding habitats could be even more
heightened given the experiences of other GM crop development.
Barrier: Concerns over invasive nature of crops
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL


1
SWE
UK
USA

3.2 Technical barriers relating to the supply chain
The only technical concern, relating to the fuel supply chain, was whether transportation
of large quantities of biomass to a power plant would result in increased traffic
congestion, noise, dust and road damage [9]. As discussed above, conversion from fossil
fuel to bioenergy power production is likely to incur greater transportation requirements,
because bioenergy fuels have lower calorific value and bulk density than fossil fuels.
While the overall transportation distances can be minimised by growing the crop locally
to the power station, the frequency and the total number of deliveries made to the power
station is still likely to increase, potentially impacting the locality around the power
station. Given the differences in calorific value and bulk density shown in Table 3.1 for
coal and wood chips, the energy density ranges from 4.4 – 10.4 GJ/m3 and 27.1 – 29.6
GJ/m3 for wood chip and coal respectively. Therefore between 2.5 and 6.5 more
deliveries would be required to generate the same amount of power if the fuel source was
changed from coal to wood chip.
Barrier: Increased environmental pressures due to traffic
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
13
UK
USA
3



3.3 Technical barriers relating to conversion technologies
Development of advanced biomass conversion technologies such as gasification and
pyrolysis has been on-going for many years and unlike direct combustion of biomass
these technologies have encountered a number of problems. Pyrolysis and gasification
demonstration plants have been constructed in a variety of countries with a mixture of
success and failure. Finland and Austria are successfully operating biomass gasification
plants however other high profile demonstration plants have been unsuccessful such as
Project ARBRE in the UK. The failure of high-profile projects has increased the pressure
on this technology area to prove itself but has also resulted in increased scepticism about
the technology and its ability to perform. These advanced technologies are deemed to be
in the development phase and are not yet commercially employed [6].
Barrier: Poor performance of advanced technologies
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL

1-5
SWE
UK

USA
There are a variety of issues arising with the use of biomass as a fuel in medium- to largescale plants that do not occur when using fossil fuels, these are related to fuel quality
issues i.e. size, moisture content and contamination and the failure of the plant to be able
to cope with inconsistencies in the fuel. The result of such issues is that plant does not
perform to the desired standard and requires continual maintenance and modification.
Plant performance remains an issue and a potential barrier to the development of biomass
energy production facilities [6]. Potential downtime of the plant could significantly affect
the economic viability of the scheme particularly if potential performance related issues
are not overcome in the design stages.
Barrier: Inconsistencies in fuel quality causing poor performance of conventional technologies
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
UK
USA

3-4
Emissions are another area where concern is raised [1 and 9]. The majority of modern
biomass power plants utilise advanced filtering and scrubbing systems to clean the
emissions before they enter the stack. Most countries have strict environmental
regulations about stack emissions which all plants must adhere to, thus minimising risk of
pollutants being emitted. Stack emissions are no longer deemed a technical barrier
particularly for clean biomass fuels. Emissions now remain a non-technical barrier due to
issues relating to public perceptions.
Barrier: Concern over air emissions
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL

1
14
SWE
UK

USA
3.4 Summary of the assessment of technical barriers
Most of the technical barriers identified in the previous sections could broadly be
grouped into the following three overarching categories.
1) Unfamiliar Fuel Barriers A number of barriers were related to the different
fuel characteristics of SRC compared to coal and
the effects these differences had on transportation
impacts and costs, fuel handling and the
performance of the conversion technologies
2) Unfamiliar Crop BarriersRelating to uncertainty over nutritional and water
requirements, effects on biodiversity, optimum
conditions for maximising yields and the strong
need for breeding initiatives.
3) Underdeveloped technologies- This applied to conversion technologies, and
planting and harvesting equipment.
4 Assessment of Non-Technical Barriers to Full Scale
Implementation of SRC for Energy
4.1 Non-technical barriers relating to the entire SRC energy
industry
4.1.1 Research and development
The energy industry has often been accused of lacking in innovative thinking and there
are several examples where the reallocation of resources from fossil fuel technologies to
renewable technologies could, in theory, have saved considerable energy and emissions.
An example of this includes the New Zealand Genesis NZ$70M contract for 1.5 Mt/year
of coal energy production. If this funding had been used to supply 170,000 solar water
heaters to their customers, 12000 GWh/y and 2.5 MtC/y could have been saved [1].
Development of renewable technologies such as SRC in the energy industry requires the
diversification away from sometimes deep-seated skills into areas such as agronomy,
ecology and soil science, that are so radically different that this can introduce a barrier to
innovative thinking. With effective communication of innovative ideas, this issue should
be relatively easy to overcome.
Barrier: Lack of innovation or communication of innovative ideas
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE


1
UK
USA
Lack of sufficiently long-term public funding for R&D initiatives was also identified as a
barrier to SRC adoption by causing unnecessary budgets conflict and project delays,
15
while researchers were required to obtain multiple sources of finance over the duration of
long-term trials [7]. In addition, funders have been criticised for failing to fund series
development so that the economies of replication can be used [8].
Barrier: Lack and misdirection of public funding for R&D
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE

4
UK

USA

One of the most powerful solution to many real and perceived barriers in the SRC energy
industry would be achieved by creating a series of good quality demonstration projects,
which show that the use of existing technologies can develop a market in which potential
users are assured of a reliable and timely supply of bioenergy. Such examples would do
much to overcome the reservations of potential users, showing that the technology is
robust, the cost competitive and the supply reliable. This would go a long way to redress
the current barriers to technical progress [11].
4.1.2 Policy
In many countries there is limited or no government bioenergy strategy. The
permutations of potential options present a complex array of alternatives, which makes
strict policy formulation difficult and has the potential to block the pathways which may
offer the best option in the long-term. As a result, many governments have chosen to
allow market forces to dictate the path of bioenergy development [11]. However, [5]
reports that policy makers cannot rely entirely on market forces in the case of renewable
energy, because the market moves too slowly for the required changes to take effect
before Kyoto renewable energy obligations are required to be realised. It is generally
accepted that incentives and governance are also required in this sector.
Barrier: Insufficient clear and consistent government policy
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE

4
UK

USA
In the US, it has been reported that there is a lack of policy support to value the multiple
environmental and rural development benefits associated with the crop that will balance
out the supports for other crops and energy sources [7]. New reforms to the European
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have the potential to partially overcome part of this
barrier for European Members by decoupling the link between crop production and
subsidies. This should have the effect of levelling the playing field for SRC and other
crops. In addition, subsidies will be paid on a per hectare basis with the stipulation that
farmers must maintain their land in good agricultural and environmental condition. What
farmers choose to produce on their land will be driven not only by the profitability of the
activity but also by the impact of the activity on their land, thereby encouraging crops and
practices that are environmentally favourable, like SRC. One of the most important
16
factors that affects the implementation of good policy is ensuring that all the benefits of
the crops are communicated effectively to policy makers.
Barrier: Policy does not reflect the multiple benefits of SRC
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE

3
UK
USA

Planning policy has also been a barrier to adoption in a number of countries. Due to the
nature of SRC energy conversion technologies and the need to minimise transport
requirements, SRC energy production benefits from the power plants being located close
to where the crops can be grown. This can often lead to stations being planned in more
sensitive locations. Bioenergy also benefits from small, numerous, ‘decentralised’ power
plants, therefore a greater number of planning applications are required for the same
amount of total installed capacity compared to large centralised fossil fuel-based plants.
These planning issues can lead to considerable delays and frustrations, which have
deterred potential developers from adopting SRC energy [8]. Regulatory and legal
liability hurdles have been reported to have severely slowed down the development
opportunities for co-firing in the US [7].
Barrier: Planning policy is too restrictive.
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL

SWE
UK

USA

While these planning, regulatory and legal delays can be arduous and frustrating, all new
technologies entering the market place generally have to undergo a period of assessment,
before they become widely accepted. If accepted, procedures and precedents are often
put in place to smooth the path of subsequent new developments.
[8] pointed out that the acceptability of generating plants is more likely to be a barrier to
development than the acceptability of the SRC crop. This is understandable because the
potential impacts (e.g. traffic, air emissions, noise and waste generation) of power
stations carry a greater environmental risk than the processes involved in fuel production.
On the other hand, regulation of the generating plants are generally much more strict, and
also more effective, because the source of the pollution is point-source and less diffuse
than for the crop production. So while it is perceived that generating plants are less
acceptable than the production of the crop, there are far greater opportunities to set in
place the regulator framework (permitting, consents, monitoring and enforcement)
required to increase public acceptance.
SRC takes a relatively long time to generate the first harvest and due to its perennial
nature and the high costs associated with planting and removal, the crop is best
maintained on a site for several years, or even decades before being removed. On the
other hand, policies and state commitment in bioenergy have been changing recently on
very short time-scales. Therefore growers are financially constrained from establishing
17
the crop by uncertainty in economic policies and a perceived lack of commitment from
governments in bioenergy [5 and 11].
Barrier: Mismatch between the transient nature of policy and the long-term nature of the crops
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
UK
USA



4.1.3 Market
By far the most common concern among member countries in relation to SRC energy
markets was the relatively high costs of SRC energy in comparison with energy from
fossil fuel [1, 4, 5, 7 and 8]. Moreover, there is concern that it is unlikely that fossil fuel
prices will rise or bioenergy prices fall by any significant extent [5]. Some countries
stated that this was their greatest barrier to adoption.
Barrier: Uncompetitive compared to fossil fuels
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL


5
SWE

UK

USA

There are several related issues that contribute to this barrier; firstly, the cost of fuel
production is currently more expensive for SRC. This is due to; the need to develop new
infrastructure, supply chains etc. which are well established in the fossil fuel industry,
higher transportation costs and the simple fact that SRC has to be actively grown and not
just mined. As such it involves longer time-scales and potentially greater resources to
produce the fuel [2].
Some countries have tax exemptions or subsidies for fossil fuel energy, which are not
available for bioenergy production, turning the competition between different fuel
sources into an uneven playing field [1]. It is argued that the subsidies should work in
favour of renewable energy sources in order to penalise fossil fuels for the negative
impacts they have on the environment [7]. However in Sweden, where significant
manipulation of the markets has occurred, there is now concern that it will soon be
difficult to maintain the balance in favour of biomass. In addition, proposed green
certificates for electricity production might stabilise the electricity market but destabilise
the market for SRC heat energy, unless incentives are also introduced for the heat market
[5].
Barrier: Subsidies on either fossil fuels or biomass negatively effect the competitiveness of
SRC
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
UK
USA




Even when competition with fossil fuels is alleviated, another renewable fuel, waste
biomass has the potential to out-compete SRC in the market place, particularly when it is
18
imported from countries with a lower cost base [6]. There is often little regulatory
distinction between SRC, clean woody wastes (such as forestry residues) and
contaminated biomass waste (such as the separated biomass portion of municipal solid
waste). This has the potential to blur the distinction between SRC energy production and
incineration with energy recovery, the latter having significant public perception issues.
By definition, wastes are a limited resource, though it is often assumed that bioenergy is
in plentiful supply and prices will always be low. However, if biomass markets are
developed solely around waste biomass to the detriment of developing dedicated crops
such as SRC, there is a danger that if the demand for clean waste biomass exceeds the
supply, the quality of the fuel used will decline as generators are forced to accept greater
volumes of cheaper, but potentially contaminated sources of biomass. On the other hand,
the use of waste biomass may have advantages for the SRC energy industry. Waste
biomass is currently readily available so its use for energy production may help to break
the cycle of financiers not supporting projects that do not have a fuel supply and growers
not growing a crop unless there is an end user to which their supplies can be dedicated.
Barrier: Competition of SRC with waste and residues biomass
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
2
UK

USA
Some of the reported barriers associated with market issues relate to investor confidence.
Currently there is low confidence among energy crop growers and investors due to past
project failures, there are uncertainties of the future market size and economies of scale
that have threatened investment decisions [6 and 10].
Barrier: Low investor confidence
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL

4-5
SWE
UK

USA
Sweden reported that their SRC willow market was dominated by a single company,
involved with breeding, cutting production, planting and harvesting [3]. Monopolies in
the SRC energy industry are to be avoided if the benefits of a free market are to be
embraced.
Barrier: Development of monopolies
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
2
SWE

UK
USA
4.1.4 Integration across sectors
A major barrier to the implementation of SRC has been a lack of communication across
two culturally different sectors, farming and power production, that are critical to
19
ensuring the success of the supply chain [7 and 10]. These sectors have very different
working environments and forging links between the two is proving difficult in several
countries. An integrated strategy from government that gives a co-ordinated method of
implementation to enable all the key players to work together to the advantage of all
could help the solution. To date the majority of strategies from government have been
target based and although they have generally encouraged joint working they have not
helped to instigate it. This strategy needs to co-ordinate policy across energy, waste,
agriculture and transport sectors in order to cover all areas of the supply chain.
Barrier: Poor communication between sectors
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
3
SWE
UK

USA

Even within the crop production sector, communication links and collaboration is
sometimes lacking, perhaps due to a threat from competition but also due to differing
objectives. Industrial representatives, grower associations and academic feedstock
researchers need to develop a unified strategy in order to encourage and successfully
implement the large scale introduction of SRC. The demonstration of a united force from
the agricultural side of this industry could aid the communication links with other
relevant industries such as fuel processors and end users.
Barrier: Poor communication within the agricultural sector
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
3
UK

USA
4.1.5 Public acceptance
Although consumer knowledge of green energy has increased substantially in recent
years due to factors such as the Kyoto Protocol and individual country’s demands for
more green energy, most of this understanding is limited to technologies such as wind
power and solar power [1]. Biomass still suffers enormously from public misconceptions.
This is mainly due to the fact that biomass needs to undergo a combustion process in
order to generate energy, which leads to instant scepticism in many cases. Also, the lack
of understanding of something as straightforward as the carbon cycle can become a
barrier to the wider acceptance of biomass energy by the general public.
Barrier: Public misconception about biomass
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL

2
SWE
UK

USA
There are many organisations such as local energy agencies, energy advisory services,
local authorities and national and regional governments that are tackling the problem by
aiming to educate a range of target groups about the facts surrounding renewable
energies, including biomass. Educational websites for schools and education packs are
20
ways to inform the younger generations. Adults are also targeted by means of seminars
and workshops to demonstrate how renewable energy and energy efficiency can be
adopted by individuals.
It is not only the end users or consumers that need to develop a better understanding of
alternative energy sources but the wider community as a whole [1]. It is the responsibility
of all to reduce their energy consumption, improve their efficiency and to look to
alternative fuels in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Barriers exist, due to a lack of understanding and also a lack of time to investigate
alternative options further. Energy managers for large companies, trading estates and
housing developments tend to opt for the simplest, cheapest and most readily available
options when deciding how to heat or power a new development. Even when
sustainability is top priority it is often easier to stop at just installing energy efficient light
bulbs and an energy management system rather than expanding the scope to look at
alternative methods of heating and power.
Barrier: Non-renewable solutions are not often the first choice
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE

2
UK

USA
These barriers exist in most countries for most developments. In order to overcome these
barriers it is necessary to take away the extra level of work and contract in experts in the
biomass field. Also, demand for alternative energy and energy efficiency needs to be
encouraged through local planning guidance and targets.
In some countries, native forests are of great importance in terms of historical and
amenity value, biodiversity and long-term carbon storage [9] and [18]. It may be deemed
that in some cases the increasing number of biomass burning plants could encourage the
felling of existing native forests and thus put this natural resource in danger [9]. To
overcome this possible risk, it is of vital importance that the biomass used to fuel these
plants is sourced from sustainable forestry such as SRC. By using only sustainable fuels
the biomass plant is contributing to the reduction of CO2 emissions and Kyoto and
national targets. If non-sustainable forestry materials are used to fuel the power plant then
the key objective of these targets, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, are not met.
Legislation to determine the definition of sustainable sourced wood fuel and to enforce its
use is needed to ensure that quick, cheap wins do not overshadow the main objectives.
Barrier: Concern that implementation of SRC will also threaten native forests
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
UK


1
21
USA
4.2 Non-technical barriers relating to fuel production
Misconceptions and a lack of awareness among farmers and other potential producers
that restrict their entry into the market were reported [7 and 11]. The principal
misconceptions were related to; the benefits of SRC compared to food production, the
growing cycle and requirements including chemical inputs. In addition, lack of
understanding among agricultural advisors such as extension and outreach staff within
the US department of Agriculture (USDA) and state extension systems, resulting in
limited promotion of the crop and in some cases further distribution of misconceptions
about the system [7]. More effective dissemination of information and communication
between researchers, advisors and producers should help to significantly reduce this
information barrier.
Barrier: Lack of awareness and misconceptions about the crop
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE

3
UK

USA

Even when information is effectively disseminated, the long lead time and perennial
nature of the crop combined with uncertainty about long-term markets and government
support restricts growers from entering the market [7]. Barriers associated with policy
and markets were discussed in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.
In order to remain competitive, farmers need to continuously weigh-up the potential
income which may be gained from different crops grown on their land. The economic
balance between different crops can shift relatively rapidly due to market forces, and it is
common for farmers to grow a different crop each year in order to remain competitive.
This is not possible for SRC, which requires a long-term land commitment before
economic benefits are gained. In combination with uncertainties over markets and
governmental policies, food, fodder and fibre production on agricultural land appear to be
a lower risk option for many land owners, because economic benefits from them have
been tried and tested [10]. The additional benefits of SRC, such as wildlife enhancement
and salinity control can influence this issue, by adding non-financial added benefits to
growing SRC.
Barrier: Competition with the production of other crops
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
2-4
SWE
UK

USA
Europe has seen the introduction of the Common Agricultural Policy Reform (CAP
Reform). This has had the effect of decoupling crop production from subsidy by
introducing a Single Farm Payment which is payable per hectare of land. This new
payment scheme will be gradually introduced over the next eight years (100% Single
Farm Payment in 2012) enabling farmers time to adjust to the variation in subsidy that
they will receive. By introducing these reforms the playing field has been levelled
22
enabling energy crops to demonstrate their competitiveness against other crops. In
addition, to encourage the adoption of energy crops an additional payment is available for
dedicated energy crops grown on non set-aside land of €45/hectare.
On the other hand, there is concern in some countries that if SRC becomes too
economically attractive for farmers, it could compete with other crops for good
agricultural land, leading to scarcities in food and fibre [2 and 9].
Barrier: Concern that if SRC becomes too economically attractive, food might become scarce.
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
UK
USA

0-1
It is likely that improvements in yields and conversion efficiencies will have a significant
effect on land use requirements. For example for a 20% efficient steam turbine plant
fuelled by a forest energy crop, yielding 15 odt/ha/yr, 360 ha of energy plantation would
be needed per MWe of installed capacity when running the plant for 6000 hours per year.
If a 40% efficient gasification plant was built instead and crop yields rose to 20 odt/ha/yr,
then only 135 ha would be needed per MWe [9].
It seems therefore to be in the benefit of farmers, end-users and society in general to
focus effort on three main research areas; improvements in yields, improvements in
cropping methods and increasing conversion efficiencies in order to reduce land
requirements, improve competitiveness with other crops and minimise the land area
required for bioenergy crop production.
One country [7] reported that there was a general lack of support to refine production
systems by such means as lowering planting density, incorporating cover crops,
alternative organic amendments as sources of nutrients etc. thereby reducing costs and
increasing the environmental benefits associated with the system. On the other hand, in
Australia, support for the development of production systems was reported to be
currently quite good [18].
Barrier: Lack of support for development of production systems
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE

2
UK
USA

Support from power producers has been slow because they have not previously been
required to incur the cost and risks associated with fuel production [5]. Perhaps an aspect
of fuel production that is not readily apparent to power producers is that the energy crops
fuel cannot simply be mined. Crop husbandry (planting and managing) of dedicated
energy crops is an additional hands-on and time-intensive process which must occur
before the fuel can be collected. Conversely, the fossil fuel industry and indeed the waste
biomass fuel industry begin at the point where the fuel is collected (mined in the case of
coal, extracted in the case of oil or collected from the generators in the case of waste
biomass). Because of this difference, many of the risks associate with crop production
23
have not been acknowledged by the power industry and have been concentrated into the
hands of farmers, who are understandably reluctant to accept them. A possible solution
to reduce some of this risk may be offered by the development of intermediary
aggregation companies, who could source SRC biomass and waste biomass from a
number of different local sources to sell to multiple markets in the local region, not only
for power production, but also for other markets (such as mulch and soil amendments).
This could maximise the opportunities for utilisation of different qualities of material and
offer producers a more reliable and diverse market.
Barrier: Slow or no adoption of crop production costs and risks by power producers
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
UK



USA
Even when the economics, policy and motivation for bioenergy production are in place,
other barriers to SRC production can compromise their successful adoption. For
example, in the US there is an additional barrier of the over-emphasis on corn as the
biomass crop of the future, to the detriment of woody biomass and dedicated energy
crops [7]. When added-value activities such as phytoremediation or sludge disposal are
combined with SRC production, conflicts of interest can be introduced that may offset
some of the benefits of the crops. For example sludge application and phytoremediation
of heavy metal contaminated land may result in higher levels of heavy metals contained
in the fuel, which may compromise the fuel quality and lead to them being unsuitable for
combustion in dedicated power plants. In addition, if the cost savings associated with the
phytoremediation activity far outweigh any income from the crop, there will be less
incentive for the fuel to be used for energy production and it may be disposed using some
other means [5].
Barrier: Focus diverted from SRC energy objectives by other crops or other activities
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
UK
USA



2
The availability of suitable staff with the appropriate skills required to install and manage
large-scale bioenergy demonstrations has been reported as a barrier to adoption, since
poorly managed demonstrations have a negative effect on yields and the overall
impression of SRC [7]. It can be difficult to find willing staff for what can be repetitive
and arduous work [9] and for some countries, the engineering and technical skills
required by the biomass industry are drawn from the declining industries of farming and
manufacturing, where the aging workforce is not being replenished with younger
employees [6].
Barrier: Low availability of suitable staff in the fuel production industry
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
UK


3-4
24
USA

4.3 Non-Technical barriers relating to the supply chain
A major non-technical barrier related to the supply chain is the lack of development in
this area. Many countries have only a few biomass power stations in operation. These
power plants have developed supply chains specific to their needs which are not always
transferable to other projects. Further research and development is required in order to
optimise the supply chain in terms of cost and impacts on the local environment [6 and
10]
Barrier: Underdeveloped supply chain
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL

3-4
SWE
UK

USA
4.4 Non-technical barriers relating to conversion technologies
The SRC energy industry, as with any new industry, requires significant amounts of
research and development work in order to improve knowledge, and reduce the perceived
risks associated with new concepts [1]. However, the SRC conversion industry is often
required to work in close collaboration with elements of the fossil fuel energy industry,
which is, in contrast, a well established institution with many decades of experience and
with tried and tested infrastructure, supply chains and workforces. As a result there have
been research and development barriers that relate uniquely to the interrelationships
between these new and old industries.
For example, [7] reported that there were misconceptions among potential end users of
biomass from SRC that limit their involvement in the development of the system. [1]
reported that there was no investment capital to finance new biomass projects and since
energy production is very capital intensive, there is little incentive to convert from one
technology to another [5]. This is particularly important with new technologies, since
costs tend to be higher in the early stages of development [1]. Moreover, the cost of
biomass conversion plants are higher due to the nature of the fuel [6] and the smaller but
more numerous scales of technology that counteract higher haulage costs and emissions
associated with biomass transport (see Section 3.1) [1].
Barrier: Partnering of two industries with different experiences and drivers
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
UK



3-4
USA

Poor public perception has also been highlighted as an obstacle to adoption of SRC
energy. These opinions have been fuelled by factors such as the poor performance of
25
older, badly performing projects [1] and the poor performance of projects where
developers were induced to experiment with advanced technologies in their early stages
of development [8 and 10] in preference to using tried and tested technologies.
Barrier: Poor public perception of SRC energy
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL


2
SWE
UK

USA
The competition for time, resources and funding with the development of fossil fuel and
nuclear conversion technologies is also a disincentive for SRC conversion developers.
[5] reported that the speed of development of conversion technologies is just as rapid for
fossil fuels as it is for bioenergy. Numerous initiatives exist to develop methods which
allow the continued use of fossil fuels, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. [10] even reports that the development of energy crops combustion and
advanced technologies has already stalled in the UK.
Barrier: Competition with fossil fuels for conversion technology development
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
UK



4
USA
There are a number of so-called advanced technologies that have been especially noted as
having been under-funded to date. These are particularly in the area of alternative
markets, like bioproducts. Under-investment in biological and chemical lignocellulosic
separation and conversion technologies required to develop new markets and lack of ongoing, consistent research support for woody crops-based biorefinery and bioproducts
were reported by [7].
Barrier: Under-funding of advanced technologies
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL

4
SWE
UK
USA

As is the case for the fuel production sector of the industry, the engineering and technical
skills required by the biomass conversion sector are drawn from a declining area of
manufacturing in some countries [6].
Barrier: Low availability of suitable staff in the conversion technology industry
Countries in which this barrier was reported
AU
BRA
CAN
NZL
SWE
UK


USA
4.5 Summary of the assessment of non-technical barriers
Unlike the technical barriers, non-technical barriers could not be easily categorised and
tended to be much more complex. Solutions to the barriers also tended to be less straight
26
forward and there were many opinions and perceptions, which following good quality
demonstration projects, have turned out to be misconceptions. For example, there is still
a considerable lack of knowledge of SRC amongst farmers in the UK. Following the
failure of the Arbre project, farmers have developed a rather negative perception towards
SRC and issues that are not real have been perpetuated, such as that SRC willow is
difficult to remove and that pests and diseases are uncontrollable. Negative perceptions
such as these tend to linger until they are proven incorrect. Often the only way to do this
is to repeatedly demonstrate the benefits of the technology until the negative perceptions
are erased.
The issues of competition were raised in relation to many aspects. Competition with nonrenewable technologies not only in its utilisation for energy production, but also for
funding, research and development efforts were highlighted. Competition of SRC with
other biomass fuels for bioenergy production and competition of SRC for land with other
crops, particularly food crops, were concerns. The development of new industries almost
always raises issues of competition, since it generally involves the replacement of
existing industries, squeezing them out of the market.
The non-technical barriers most likely to cause on-going delays to implementation will be
related to government policies. Energy, planning, waste and farming policies are all
intricately linked in SRC energy production and changes in one area can have knock-on
effects in others. In addition, positive changes in policy can be welcome in some
respects, but even with positive changes, when policy is changed too frequently, this can
undermine investor confidence.
Many of the other non-technical barriers could be explained by the youth of the industry
and the novelty of the approach to farming the crop and generating biomass power.
Those countries where SRC have been utilised for the longest time, seem to have
overcome many of the non-technical barriers that the less experienced countries are still
experiencing. Familiarity, time and the sharing of knowledge and experiences between
the experienced and the novices should allow most of these barriers to be overcome,
because SRC is becoming successful in more than one country, suggesting that there are
unlikely to be any non-technical barriers that cannot be overcome in all other countries.
5 Conclusions
IEA Task 30 members and literature reviews identified the technical barriers to adoption
of SRC. The barriers to implementation were different for different countries and were
somewhat dependant on the stage of development of the industry. For example, the USA
reported a technical barrier of limited planting stock availability, whereas Sweden who
have a relatively well developed planting stock industry, reported that there are no
technical barriers in this sector, only the non-technical barrier that the industry was
dominated by only one player.
This report has highlighted areas where a lack of communication and sharing of
information is evident. For example, an issue raised by the US was a lack of
27
understanding of the optimum intra-field multiclonal distribution patterns, where this
subject has been researched at great length in Europe to great effect and is dictating what
combinations of species to plant for commercial crops in best practice guidance.
It would appear that in the majority of cases the technical barriers related to supply chain
and conversion technologies are on the verge of resolution. Conversion technologies are
becoming more advanced and development in the engineering field is on-going with
many commercial power generation plants in existence. However, it is the non-technical
barriers that appear to be the more obstructive and if anything being more pervasive.
Issues of disjointed legislation and guidelines from government, public misconceptions
and fear of an uncertain future will be the toughest obstacles requiring much effort in
lobbying and education.
6 References
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Sims, R. (2001). Renewable Energy Options in New Zealand. Climate Change:
the IPCC third assessment report. Wellington Workshop, May 2001.
www.rsnz.govt.nz/advisory/nz_climate/climchgwk01/sims.php
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (1997). Energy Crops - Energywise renewables 8: www.eeca.govt.nz/content/pdf/!REN8_K8.pdf.
Hoffmann, D. & Weih, M. 2005. Limitations and improvement of the potential
utilisation of woody biomass for energy derived from short rotation woody crops
in Sweden and Germany. Biomass and Bioenergy 28:267-279.
Ledin, S., Sennersby-Forsse, L. and Wright, L. (1998). IEA End of Task Report
Short Rotation Forestry Production Systems 1995-1997.
bioenergy.ornl.gov/reports/iea/iea-srf.html
Helby et al. (2004). Market Development problems for sustainable bio-energy
systems in Sweden (The BIOMARK project). Environment and Energy Systems
Studies, Lund University. Report no. 38.
DTI (2004) Renewable supply chain gap analysis: Summary Report
Volk, T. (2004). Technical and Non-Technical Barriers to the Development of
SRC Willow in the United States (personal communication prepared by Tim
Volk, State University of New York )
Armstrong, A. and Claridge, J. (2000). Short Rotation Coppice and Wood Fuel
Symposium: From Research to Renewable Energy. Forestry Commission,
Edinburgh.
Sims, R. (2003). The Brilliance of Bioenergy - Environmentally Sound
Technologies - Or Not? www.world-council-for-renewableenergy.org/downloads/WCRE-SIMS.pdf
DTI (2004). Technology and Market options are needed to maximise UK and
environmental benefits beyond wind. Renewables Innovation review.
www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewables/policy/solar.pdf
Institute of Biology (2002). Fuelling the Future 3 Biofuels.
Phyllis database for biomass and waste. http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis. Energy
Research Centre of the Netherlands.
Energy Technology Support Unit (1996). Transport and Supply Logistics of
Biomass Fuels. Contract: ETSU B/W2/00399/REP/1
28
14
15
16
17
18
Kurttu, K. L. (1999). Environmental and hygienic aspects of willow coppice in
Sweden. Biomass and Bioenergy. 16(4): 291-297.
Environmental Impacts of Planting Energy Crops. The Wales Biomass Centre.
www.walesbiomass.org/Environ%20impacts.html
McCracken, A. R. and Dawson, W. M. (2001). Disease effects in mixed varietal
plantations of willow. Aspects of Applied Biology 65. Biomass and Energy
Crops II.
Stephens, W. Hess, T. M. and Knox, J. W. (2001). The effect of energy crops on
hydrology. Aspects of Applied Biology 65. Biomass and Energy Crops II.
Brendan George (Personal Communication) New South Wales Department of
Primary Industries. IEA Task 30 Country Representative for Australia.
29