4.8 Review

Barriers to and drivers for UK bioenergy development

Journal

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages 1217-1227

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.039

Keywords

Bioenergy; Biofuels; Biomass; Barriers; Drivers; UK

Funding

  1. Environment Agency of England and Wales
  2. Great Western Research (GWR) Alliance
  3. UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC)
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council's (BBSRC) Sustainable Bioenergy Centre (BSBEC) [BB/G01616X/1]
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G01616X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. BBSRC [BB/G01616X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Barriers to UK bioenergy development arise from a number of technical, financial, social and other constraints. Likewise, the drivers for using bioenergy are numerous and diverse. A range of these barriers and drivers have been identified through a comprehensive literature and case study review, and then assessed through an online questionnaire, completed by stakeholders from across the UK bioenergy industry: farmers/suppliers, developers/owners of bioenergy projects, primary end-users, and government/policy stakeholders. The results are presented in the form of 'spider web' diagrams. The most critical barriers and drivers relate to economic factors of bioenergy projects. Farmers/suppliers and developers are influenced by production costs and benefits, whilst primary end-users of bioenergy are concerned mainly with the cost of purchasing energy resources. Common drivers for all stakeholders were found to be reducing carbon emissions and the dependency on fossil fuels. In order to satisfy the needs of stakeholders schemes must be both economically attractive and environmentally sustainable for projects to be successful. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available