IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v36y2008i6p2044-2050.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Project ARBRE: Lessons for bio-energy developers and policy-makers

Author

Listed:
  • Piterou, Athena
  • Shackley, Simon
  • Upham, Paul

Abstract

Project Arable Biomass Renewable Energy (ARBRE) was a 'flagship' project in the UK to demonstrate electricity generation from dedicated energy crops, employing the high efficiency of gasification combined cycle technology while also contributing to the waste management problem of sewage disposal. The plant never reached commercial operation and this paper provides the first detailed public account of the reasons, drawing on interviews with the main actors. Project ARBRE failed due to three unfortunate developments: the withdrawal for reasons of commercial strategy of the main company that initiated and financed the project; bankruptcy of the turnkey contractor appointed to oversee the project; and technical problems with the gasification technology, which could not be resolved within the financial and time constraints. All these factors acted in reinforcing manner and they were individually preventable: documenting the process of failure is a learning experience that can prevent their recurrence.

Suggested Citation

  • Piterou, Athena & Shackley, Simon & Upham, Paul, 2008. "Project ARBRE: Lessons for bio-energy developers and policy-makers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2044-2050, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:36:y:2008:i:6:p:2044-2050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(08)00110-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thornley, Patricia, 2006. "Increasing biomass based power generation in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(15), pages 2087-2099, October.
    2. Upreti, Bishnu Raj, 2004. "Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 785-800, April.
    3. Upham, Paul & Shackley, Simon, 2006. "The case of a proposed 21.5 MWe biomass gasifier in Winkleigh, Devon: Implications for governance of renewable energy planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(15), pages 2161-2172, October.
    4. van der Horst, Dan, 2005. "UK biomass energy since 1990: the mismatch between project types and policy objectives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 705-716, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Narwane, Vaibhav S. & Yadav, Vinay Surendra & Raut, Rakesh D. & Narkhede, Balkrishna E. & Gardas, Bhaskar B., 2021. "Sustainable development challenges of the biofuel industry in India based on integrated MCDM approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 298-309.
    2. Glithero, N.J. & Ramsden, S.J. & Wilson, P., 2013. "Barriers and incentives to the production of bioethanol from cereal straw: A farm business perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 161-171.
    3. Kirkels, Arjan, 2016. "Biomass boom or bubble? A longitudinal study on expectation dynamics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 83-96.
    4. Bartela, Łukasz & Kotowicz, Janusz & Dubiel-Jurgaś, Klaudia, 2018. "Investment risk for biomass integrated gasification combined heat and power unit with an internal combustion engine and a Stirling engine," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 601-616.
    5. Kirkels, Arjan F., 2014. "Punctuated continuity: The technological trajectory of advanced biomass gasifiers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 170-182.
    6. Shafie, S.M., 2016. "A review on paddy residue based power generation: Energy, environment and economic perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1089-1100.
    7. Wright, Daniel G. & Dey, Prasanta K. & Brammer, John, 2014. "A barrier and techno-economic analysis of small-scale bCHP (biomass combined heat and power) schemes in the UK," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 332-345.
    8. Levidow, Les & Upham, Paul, 2017. "Linking the multi-level perspective with social representations theory: Gasifiers as a niche innovation reinforcing the energy-from-waste (EfW) regime," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-13.
    9. Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Pratibha Rani & Fausto Cavallaro & Ibrahim M. Hezam, 2023. "An IVIF-Distance Measure and Relative Closeness Coefficient-Based Model for Assessing the Sustainable Development Barriers to Biofuel Enterprises in India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, February.
    10. Levidow, Les & Borda-Rodriguez, Alexander & Papaioannou, Theo, 2014. "UK bioenergy innovation priorities: Making expectations credible in state-industry arenas," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 191-204.
    11. Adams, P.W. & Hammond, G.P. & McManus, M.C. & Mezzullo, W.G., 2011. "Barriers to and drivers for UK bioenergy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 1217-1227, February.
    12. Glithero, Neryssa J. & Wilson, Paul & Ramsden, Stephen J., 2013. "Prospects for arable farm uptake of Short Rotation Coppice willow and miscanthus in England," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 209-218.
    13. Adams, P.W.R. & Lindegaard, K., 2016. "A critical appraisal of the effectiveness of UK perennial energy crops policy since 1990," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 188-202.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carneiro, Patrícia & Ferreira, Paula, 2012. "The economic, environmental and strategic value of biomass," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 17-22.
    2. Adams, P.W.R. & Lindegaard, K., 2016. "A critical appraisal of the effectiveness of UK perennial energy crops policy since 1990," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 188-202.
    3. Narwane, Vaibhav S. & Yadav, Vinay Surendra & Raut, Rakesh D. & Narkhede, Balkrishna E. & Gardas, Bhaskar B., 2021. "Sustainable development challenges of the biofuel industry in India based on integrated MCDM approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 298-309.
    4. Rogers, J.C. & Simmons, E.A. & Convery, I. & Weatherall, A., 2008. "Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4217-4226, November.
    5. Krekel, Christian & Rechlitz, Julia & Rode, Johannes & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2020. "Quantifying the Externalities of Renewable Energy Plants Using Wellbeing Data: The Case of Biogas," IZA Discussion Papers 13959, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Wright, Daniel G. & Dey, Prasanta K. & Brammer, John, 2014. "A barrier and techno-economic analysis of small-scale bCHP (biomass combined heat and power) schemes in the UK," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 332-345.
    7. Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Pratibha Rani & Fausto Cavallaro & Ibrahim M. Hezam, 2023. "An IVIF-Distance Measure and Relative Closeness Coefficient-Based Model for Assessing the Sustainable Development Barriers to Biofuel Enterprises in India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, February.
    8. Schumacher, K. & Krones, F. & McKenna, R. & Schultmann, F., 2019. "Public acceptance of renewable energies and energy autonomy: A comparative study in the French, German and Swiss Upper Rhine region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 315-332.
    9. Upham, Paul, 2009. "Applying environmental-behaviour concepts to renewable energy siting controversy: Reflections on a longitudinal bioenergy case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4273-4283, November.
    10. Upham, Paul & Shackley, Simon & Waterman, Holly, 2007. "Public and stakeholder perceptions of 2030 bioenergy scenarios for the Yorkshire and Humber region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 4403-4412, September.
    11. Eswarlal, Vimal Kumar & Vasudevan, Geoffrey & Dey, Prasanta Kumar & Vasudevan, Padma, 2014. "Role of community acceptance in sustainable bioenergy projects in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 333-343.
    12. Soland, Martin & Steimer, Nora & Walter, Götz, 2013. "Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 802-810.
    13. Adams, P.W. & Hammond, G.P. & McManus, M.C. & Mezzullo, W.G., 2011. "Barriers to and drivers for UK bioenergy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 1217-1227, February.
    14. Mafakheri, Fereshteh & Nasiri, Fuzhan, 2014. "Modeling of biomass-to-energy supply chain operations: Applications, challenges and research directions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 116-126.
    15. Dinica, Valentina, 2009. "Biomass power: Exploring the diffusion challenges in Spain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(6-7), pages 1551-1559, August.
    16. Megan Swindal & Gilbert Gillespie & Rick Welsh, 2010. "Community digester operations and dairy farmer perspectives," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(4), pages 461-474, December.
    17. Van Dael, Miet & Lizin, Sebastien & Swinnen, Gilbert & Van Passel, Steven, 2017. "Young people’s acceptance of bioenergy and the influence of attitude strength on information provision," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 417-430.
    18. Adams, Michelle & Wheeler, David & Woolston, Genna, 2011. "A participatory approach to sustainable energy strategy development in a carbon-intensive jurisdiction: The case of Nova Scotia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2550-2559, May.
    19. Rentizelas, Athanasios A. & Tatsiopoulos, Ilias P., 2010. "Locating a bioenergy facility using a hybrid optimization method," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 196-209, January.
    20. Upham, Paul & Shackley, Simon, 2006. "The case of a proposed 21.5 MWe biomass gasifier in Winkleigh, Devon: Implications for governance of renewable energy planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(15), pages 2161-2172, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:36:y:2008:i:6:p:2044-2050. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

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

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

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