4.6 Article

Key Barriers to the Adoption of Biomass Gasification in Burkina Faso

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 13, Issue 13, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13137324

Keywords

socio-cultural lock-in; Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP); adoption barriers; biomass gasification; Burkina Faso

Funding

  1. Academie de Recherche et de l'Enseignement Superieur de la Federation Wallonie Bruxelles (Belgium), Commission de la Cooperation au Developpement (ARES CCD)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article assesses the challenges of gasification energy in the industrial sector in Burkina Faso, identifying socio-cultural and organizational barriers as the most critical issue in the adoption of gasification.
The industrial sector in Burkina Faso faces two significant energy challenges access to efficient energy sources that are also renewable. Pyrolysis and gasification are emerging as conversion pathways that exploit available agricultural and industrial biomass. Pyrolysis has been adopted successfully, whereas gasification failed without getting beyond the experimental stage. This article assesses potential barriers to the adoption of gasification based on interviews with the stakeholders of the energy sector (users, NGOs, policy makers). We use pyrolysis as a benchmark to point out the barriers to adoption. The hierarchical analysis process (AHP) method was applied to identify the most significant barriers to the adoption of gasification. Twenty-seven barriers were identified and prioritized in two dimensions and five categories technical, economic and financial, socio-cultural and organizational, political, governmental and institutional, and ecological and geographical barriers. The category of socio-cultural and organizational barriers emerged as the most critical in the adoption of gasification. This category deserves special consideration to go past the pilot installation stage and adopting this technology.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available