Constraints and Success Factors for Woody Biomass Energy Systems in Two Countries with Minimal Bioenergy Sectors

In many EU countries, ambitious targets have been set for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the contribution of woody biomass to renewable energy production. Although nations with active forest sectors could be subject to unique factors that discourage the increased use of wood for energy, lessons learned from nations with well-developed woody biomass energy sectors could be used to assist in the development of nascent woody biomass energy sectors elsewhere. Here, energy sector data and relevant policies from Austria, Finland, Germany and Sweden (OECD countries with well-developed, modern wood energy sectors) are compared with those from Australia and Canada (OECD countries with less mature wood energy sectors). The energy sectors of the EU nations considered in this analysis exhibit striking differences with Australia and Canada. Of particular interest are critical differences in the supply of domestic primary energy, energy used per unit GDP, sovereign energy security, the mix of energy sources utilised, the economic viability of non-hydro renewables and the extent to which economies depend on fossil fuels. The policies affecting renewable energy sector development, including woody biomass availability and GHG reduction targets, also differ significantly. Adoption of new technologies with niche applications, leveraged with knowledge from the best practices and experience of countries with well-established bioenergy supply chains, represent an opportunity to set strong foundations for bioenergy production in countries with immature bioenergy sectors. Based on this analysis, it appears prima facie that the goal of reducing GHG emissions is only one of many factors that determine how much emphasis individual nations place on developing non-hydro renewable energy sectors (including woody biomass). The development of a woody biomass energy sector may be driven most strongly by regional issues, such as the need for less expensive waste disposal, cost-effective substitutions for fossil fuels, local economic development and energy resilience. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved