4.7 Article

Competitiveness assessment of the biomass power generation industry in China: A five forces model study

Journal

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Volume 89, Issue -, Pages 144-153

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2015.12.035

Keywords

China; Renewable energy; Biomass power industry; Assessment; Competitiveness

Funding

  1. Humanities and Social Sciences Planning Fund the Ministry of Education of China [12YJAZH205]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province of China [G2012502065]
  3. Beijing Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project [12JGB067]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

China is facing a number of energy related challenges including a shortage of electricity supply, depletion of fossil fuels and environmental pollution. These challenges make it important to develop renewable energy resources. As per other renewable energy industries, the biomass power industry is facing a series of opportunities and challenges. Utilizing Michael Porter's Five Forces Model theory for analyzing the competitive environment and the competitive situation of an industry, this paper establishes a Five Forces Model for assessing the competitiveness of China's biomass power industry. Inputs for this model include semi-structured interviews with biomass power generation enterprises and a critical analysis of the national policy framework along with relevant literature and official statistics. Five major stakeholders of China's biomass power industry, namely competitors, suppliers, buyers, potential competitors, and substitutes are assessed to determine their influence on the biomass power generation industry. This assessment highlighted the current status, existing issues and future prospects of the biomass power industry. Similarly, it provides assistance to develop procurement strategies for the sustainable development of the industry. (C) 2015 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available