4.7 Article

Regional biomass planning - Helping to realise national renewable energy goals?

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 46, 期 -, 页码 23-30

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2012.03.024

关键词

Biomass; Policy; Planning; Region; Renewable energy

资金

  1. EC Joint Research Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biomass will make a vital contribution to the EU renewable energy targets, however large amounts need to be mobilised to achieve policy goals. To promote action, the European Commission sent a firm call to member states for coordinated biomass strategies and plans, and engagement of sub-national actors. This paper examines how regional level biomass planning can benefit national planning and EU target achievement, and addressing of broader concerns of increased bioenergy production. It assesses a set of regional biomass action plans and their linkages to national level plans. The study indicates that regional and national planning address measures to reach targets in several ways, but that impacts related to the increased bioenergy production are often weakly assessed. Regional level strengths appear to include mobilisation of new biomass resources and involvement of stakeholders, while matters related to the sources of biomass and implementation details are better delineated by national plans. Areas with scope for improvement exist at both levels and include consideration of other uses of biomass and clarification of linkages between various targets. The paper concludes that regional planning clearly has the capacity to contribute to the concretisation of national level actions as well as enhancement of local economy and expertise; however at present, national level planning does not adequately link to such planning efforts. Further, the study indicates that the value of national planning work can be enhanced if efforts are made to recognise regional planning strengths and competence to bring about the planned changes. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据