Assessing Community Support and Feasibility for Bioenergy in the Northern Rivers

Region

Erlebacher, RachelAcademic Director: Brennan, PeterProject Advisor: Shields, Katrina

Cornell UniversityEnvironmental Science and Sustainability

Australia, AlstonvilleSubmitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Australia: Sustainability and

Environmental Action, SIT Study Abroad, Spring 2015

ISP Ethics Review

(Note: Each AD must complete, sign, and submit this form for every student’s ISP.)

The ISP paper by _____Rachel Erlebacher______________________ (student) does/does

not* conform to the Human Subjects Review approval from the Local Review Board, the

ethical standards of the local community, and the ethical and academic standards outlined in

the SIT student and faculty handbooks.

*This paper does not conform to standards for the following reasons:

Completed by: Peter Brennan

Academic Director: Peter Brennan

Signature:

Program: Australia: Sustainability and Environmental Action

Date: 15/5/2015

ii

Abstract:

As climate change becomes more apparent and worsens, it is important to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions. Australia’s reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas,

still remains high. With a goal to switch to 20% renewable energy by 2020, Australia has a

vested interest to develop multiple forms of renewable energy, including bioenergy. Potential

feedstocks include agricultural waste, municipal green waste, timber and forestry waste, and

energy crops. Energy can be extracted from these feedstocks through anaerobic digestion,

combustion, or pyrolysis. Bioenergy has many potential benefits, including reduced

emissions, landfill diversion, and local job opportunities. The Northern Rivers Region is an

ideal area to explore bioenergy because it has a large agricultural sector, and therefore

available feedstocks. However, a social license needs to be established through community

engagement to determine if the industry should be established in the first place.

This study sought to assess the current perceptions and awareness of bioenergy in the

Northern Rivers Region from both experts in the field and the general community. I

completed a technical questionnaire and collected samples for testing at Nimbin Valley Dairy

as they move to the investment phase of installing an anaerobic digester. I conducted 24

interviews with key stakeholders that have knowledge of bioenergy in the region; I also

distributed an online survey to community members to determine what the general public

currently knows about bioenergy. The survey was sent to approximately 550 people and 78

people completed it, with an estimated 14% response rate. I used qualitative and quantitative

analysis to synthesize all of the responses and make recommendations for how to proceed.

My findings suggest that there is low awareness amongst community members about

bioenergy, and there are many unknowns about the availability of the feedstocks in the

region. An extensive feasibility report must be conducted to answer these unknowns. An

educational campaign should be launched to demystify bioenergy and specify exactly how

the industry will look in the Region. Comments made by participants indicate that the

community needs to understand specifically what feedstocks and technologies would be used.

A focus group should be created, comprised of a variety of stakeholders, to develop a

proposal of how the industry will be developed. Once these studies and campaigns are

completed, the Region can proceed with a social license and conduct an assessment of

community perceptions to determine if the community would accept the proposal.

Key Words:

Social License, Bioenergy, Scoping Study, Community Engagement

i

Acknowledgements:

I would like to first thank Katrina Shields, my resourceful and helpful advisor. She

provided support when I needed it, contact names for my project, and advice on my project as

we developed it together. Most importantly, thank you for providing and setting me up with

my organization contact, Paul Cruickshank.

Secondly, I would like to thank Paul Cruickshank, Sustain Northern Rivers and the

Office of Environment and Heritage NSW for hosting me during the ISP period and working

with me to develop such a rewarding project. Paul provided advice, resources, office space,

transportation, and a welcoming presence as I collected my research. He supplied the contact

names for my interviews and the databases for my survey. This project would not have been

possible without him.

Thank you to all of the North Coast Energy Forum members, including Mark Byrne,

Sandi Middleton, Debbie Firestone, and Craig Jenkins, that assisted me in identifying

additional contacts for my interviews. It is with their help that I was able to reach out to so

many people. Additionally, they reviewed my survey and interview questions and provided

valuable feedback.

My data would not exist without the 24 people that agreed to be interviewed. Thank

you to all of my interviewees (complete list located in Appendix C) for participating in my

study and contributing valuable knowledge and expertise. Furthermore, some provided

additional contacts and academic articles to complement my research.

Thank you to Natalie Meyer of the Nimbin Neighbourhood and Information Centre,

who was my organization contact for the other part of my study in Nimbin. She also provided

transportation, office space, and vast knowledge to help me succeed in my ISP.

I would like to thank Coral Schwertner and the rest of her family, and Michaela

Vincent for so graciously opening their homes to me. Coral and Michaela provided a

welcoming home away from home and have made my stay in Australia so much more

enjoyable.

Thank you to Dr. Shorna Allred, my academic advisor at Cornell University, for

supporting me and providing guidance on how to bring my ISP research back to Cornell to be

used as my senior thesis.

Lastly, I would like to thank my academic director, Peter Brennan and the rest of the

SIT staff, including Laura Brennan, Eshana Bragg, and Dave Brown for organizing such an

incredible study abroad program. They have provided support, guidance, valuable

educational experiences, and so much more. This program has been incredible.

ii

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………1.1 The Necessity to Change ……………………………………………………………………1.2 Bioenergy in Australia ………………………………………………………………………

1.2.1 Feedstock Options and Methods of Extraction …………………………………………1.2.2 Benefits of Bioenergy …………………………………………………………………

1.3 The Northern Rivers Region ………………………………………………………………1.3.1 Current Examples in NSW ……………………………………………………………

1.4 Social Licenses ……………………………………………………………………………1.4.1 Why are they important? ……………………………………………………………….1.4.2 Current Perceptions ……………………………………………………………………

1.5 Study Goals and Justification ………………………………………………………………2. Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………

2.1 Overview ……………………………………………………………………………………2.2 Ethical Considerations ……………………………………………………………………2.3 Background Research ………………………………………………………………………2.4 Nimbin Valley Dairy Pre-Feasibility Questionnaire ………………………………………

2.4.1 Analysis and Synthesis …………………………………………………………………2.5 Assessing Current Perceptions in the Northern Rivers Region ……………………………

2.5.1 Creating Interview Questions …………………………………………………………2.5.2 Contacting Potential Interviewees ……………………………………………………2.5.3 Conducting Interviews …………………………………………………………………2.5.4 Preparing the Survey ……………………………………………………………………2.5.5 Distributing the Survey …………………………………………………………………2.5.6 Compiling Interview Results ……………………………………………………………2.5.7 Survey Analysis …………………………………………………………………………

2.6 Limitations and Constraints …………………………………………………………………3. Results and Discussion …………………………………………………………………………

3.1 Feasibility of Anaerobic Digestion for Nimbin Valley Dairy: A Case Study ………………3.1.1 Environmental Benefits- Powering the Farm …………………………………………3.1.2 The Need to Grow ………………………………………………………………………3.1.3 Complexities of Measuring Output ……………………………………………………3.1.4 Next Steps and Future Implications ……………………………………………………

3.2 The Potential Bioenergy Industry …………………………………………………………3.2.1 The Importance of Renewable Energy …………………………………………………3.2.2 Current Community Perceptions ………………………………………………………3.2.3 Benefits and Concerns …………………………………………………………………3.2.4 Potential Feedstocks for the Region ……………………………………………………3.2.5 Feasible Conversion Technologies ……………………………………………………3.2.6 Appropriate Scale ………………………………………………………………………

3.3 Developing a Social License in the Northern Rivers Region ………………………………3.3.1 Community Awareness …………………………………………………………………3.3.2 Redefining Bioenergy …………………………………………………………………3.3.3 What Constitutes a Social License? ……………………………………………………3.3.4 Public Education ………………………………………………………………………3.3.5 Government’s Role ……………………………………………………………………3.3.6 Next Steps and Future Work ……………………………………………………………

4. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………5. References ………………………………………………………………………………………

5.1 Social License Interviews …………………………………………………………………Appendix A: Anonymous Online Survey …………………………………………………………Appendix B: Script for Open-Ended Interview Questions ………………………………………Appendix C: Interview Schedule …………………………………………………………………Appendix D: Interview Raw Data …………………………………………………………………

11113455689101010101111121212121314141515171717181819191920212429303232333335363638404244485051

iii

List of Figures and Tables:

Figure 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………Figure 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………Figure 3 ……………………………………………………………………………………Figure 4 ……………………………………………………………………………………Figure 5 ……………………………………………………………………………………Figure 6 ……………………………………………………………………………………

Table 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………Table 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………

237202432

2932

Abbreviations:

NSW- New South Wales

CSG- Coal Seam Gas

ISP- Independent Study Project

SLO- Social License to Operate

NCEF- North Coast Energy Forum

OEH- Office of Environment and Heritage NSW

SNR- Sustain Northern Rivers

NNIC- Nimbin Neighbourhood and Information Centre

iv

1. Introduction

1.1 The Necessity to Change

Climate change has become an increasing threat as greenhouse gas emissions

continue to increase; CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm in the last 140

years (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 14). Evidence has already shown that these human induced

changes contribute to sea level rise, increased extreme weather, ocean acidification, and

increased glacial melt (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 9). Even if we cut all greenhouse gas emissions

today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) still predicts a 2.5° C increase

in temperature by 2100 (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 18).

In order to mitigate some of the predicted risks and prevent further warming, it is

imperative to reduce our emissions, particularly targeting the energy sector. Diesendorf notes

that the largest sources of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the electricity sector

using coal-based generation, and the transportation sector (2007, p. 1). Furthermore, he states

that Australia is the largest coal exporter and releases the highest number of greenhouse gases

per capita (2007, p. 3). Currently 73% of Australia’s electricity is generated by coal and

another 13% is generated by natural gas (Origin Energy, 2015). With a target set to reduce

CO2 emissions by 50% by 2040 (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 43) and a Renewable Energy Target to

switch to 20% renewable energy by 2020 (Hall, 2014, p. 222), Australia has a vested interest

to research and develop its renewable energy sector.

1.2 Bioenergy in Australia

While conventional renewable energy options, such as solar and wind, are viable and

growing in Australia, the use of bioenergy has the potential to supply a substantial portion to

the electricity market. Diesendorf defines bioenergy as “energy produced from biomass-…

material [that is] produced by photosynthesis or is an organic byproduct from a waste stream”

(2007, p. 128). Major feedstocks include agricultural-related wastes, energy crops, landfill

gas, sewage gas, sugarcane, municipal waste, and timber-related waste (Clean Energy

Council, 2008a, p. 19). Because the energy is produced from sources that serve as a carbon

sink, bioenergy, in theory, can be carbon neutral (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 129).

1.2.1 Feedstock Options and Methods of Extraction

Ison et al. explain that conversion from biomass to energy can be done in four major

methods: anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, combustion, and cogeneration. Anaerobic digestion

decomposes organic wastes in an oxygen-deprived setting, usually a tank, to produce

1

methane and an organic sludge called digestate, which can be composted and used as

fertilizer. Pyrolysis involves heating biomass in an oxygen-restricted environment to produce

methane and biochar, an organic substance that is nutrient-rich and a carbon sink.

Combustion is the direct burning of biomass to produce methane; this method can often be

done in coal or oil-based boilers (2013, p. 6). Lastly, cogeneration, also known as combined

heat and power (CHP) is the process of producing heat and electricity simultaneously from a

single source, which can be biomass; heat that is traditionally lost in the grid is cycled back

into the system and used to produce more energy (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage,

2014, p. 1). If cooling is built into the system as well, it is known as tri-generation (NSW

Office of Environment and Heritage, 2014, p. 10).

In terms of feedstocks, there are a variety of options that are more compatible with

certain extraction methods. The thermal technologies, which include pyrolysis and

combustion, are best suited and most efficient in processing dry mass, while anaerobic

digestion feeds best from liquid or wet wastes (Sustainability Victoria, n.d.). Agricultural-

related wastes include crop residue as well as livestock wastes; these sources are useful

because the waste often has no other purpose and needs to be disposed of in some way (Clean

Energy Council, 2008a, p. 19). Australia especially, can convert sugar cane residue, known as

bagasse, into energy. Taylor and Quirk estimate that 30 tons of dry residue per hectare are

Figure 1. Feedstock pathways and conversion methods (Ison et al., 2013, p. 5)2

produced from sugar cane harvesting annually; this could produce a significant amount of

energy (2010, p. 303). Similarly, landfill gas and sewage gas also make use of a waste that

would otherwise just release emissions into the atmosphere. Landfills and sewage treatment

plants both release methane naturally as the products break down. Rather than let it go into

the atmosphere, this gas can be captured and converted into energy (Clean Energy Council,

2008a, p. 19). Additionally, municipal organic waste and wood-related wastes can be

converted to energy (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 19). Biomass can also intentionally be

produced. Certain crops or woody plants are grown specifically to be converted into energy; a

lot of research has recently been conducted on the potential to use invasive plants or weeds as

an energy source (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 19).

1.2.2 Benefits of Bioenergy

Using feedstocks and conversion methods, “The Australian Business Roundtable on

Climate Change estimated that bioenergy could supply between 19.8% and 30.7% of

Australia’s electricity needs by 2050” (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 21). Currently,

bioenergy only contributes 0.9% of Australia’s energy, which is significantly lower than

other industrialized nations, such as Austria at 4.2% and Finland at 14.3% of their total

energy productions (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 12).

Figure 2. Bioenergy’s contribution to electricity in leading OECD countries (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 12)

3

It would be advantageous for Australia to increase its use of bioenergy, as it has many

environmental, social, and economic benefits. The Australian Bioenergy Roadmap,

conducted by the Clean Energy Council states,

The bioenergy industry is quite different to other renewable energy generation, such as solar or wind generation, as it often involves a combination of complex processes to create usable energy. Due to this unique combination of activities, bioenergy is capable of delivering multiple environmental, social and economic benefits… (2008a, p. 5).

Most obviously, bioenergy can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Methane releases fewer

emissions when burned compared to coal (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 6). Additionally,

organic waste that is left to decompose in a field or landfill releases methane directly into the

atmosphere; diverting that waste and converting it into energy can further reduce emissions

(Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p 6). Biochar, a by-product of pyrolysis, sequesters carbon

and can be a useful carbon sink (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 129). Furthermore, both biochar and

digestate produced from anaerobic digestion can replace nitrogen fertilizers for agriculture,

which also reduces emissions (Ison et al., 2013, p. 6). In terms of economic benefits,

bioenergy is expected to be cheaper than coal as the threat of climate change worsens (Clean

Energy Council, 2008a, p. 15). Natural gas produced locally also tends to be cheaper than

grid-purchased electricity (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2014, p. 7). It will

provide jobs, supporting the local economy (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 7). Ison et al.

also support this claim, noting that many of the jobs will be locally sourced (2012, p. 10).

Lastly, it is a secure energy source, as it is continuously supplied and includes a variety of

feedstocks (Clean Energy Council, 2008a, p. 6).

1.3 The Northern Rivers Region

The Northern Rivers Region, on the Northeast coast of New South Wales, is an ideal

location to utilize bioenergy. The Region includes Tweed, Byron, Kyogle, Lismore, Ballina,

Richmond Valley and Clarence Valley shires (Regional Development Australia [RDA]-

Northern Rivers, 2011, p. 1). With a sub-tropical climate, the region receives high

precipitation, making solar energy unreliable to supply continuous electricity on a large scale

(Ison et al., 2012, p. 9). In an interview with Mark Byrne, the convener of the North Coast

Energy Forum, he explains, “Lots of rain, expensive land and not much wind mean that we

are unlikely to ever attract big solar or wind farms... there is still huge potential for much

4

more small-scale renewable energy like bioenergy...” (Rollings, 2014, p. 6). Additionally, the

fertile land makes the Region an agriculture hub, producing large quantities of agricultural

waste, which can be used as prime feedstock (RDA- Northern Rivers, 2011, p. 1). The

Region produces wheat, barley, grain sorghum, maize, triticale, field peas and soybeans

(RDA-Northern Rivers, 2011, p. 2). In terms of other crops, the Northern Rivers Region

produces a variety of vegetables, the majority of Australia’s macadamia nuts, and other fruits

(RDA-Northern Rivers, 2011, pp. 5-7). The Northern Rivers Food Profile conducted by

RDA- Northern Rivers claims, “Poultry (for eggs and meat), dairy cattle and meat cattle are

prominent types of livestock in the Northern Rivers region and have been the key historical

industries for the region” (2011, p. 3). In fact, Casino is considered to be the NSW Beef

Capital (RDA- Northern Rivers, 2011, p. 3). All of these sectors produce considerable waste

that could be fed into a multitude of bioenergy systems.

With a population of 300,000 (RDA- Northern Rivers, 2011, p. 1) and projected to

grow 37% by 2036 (Rollings, 2014, p. 2), bioenergy could be particularly advantageous for

this area. Furthermore, unemployment is estimated to be 6.3%, which is higher than the NSW

average of 5.8% (RDA- Northern Rivers, 2011, p. 18). Increased bioenergy can bring in local

jobs and stimulate the economy.

1.3.1 Current Examples in NSW

The Northern Rivers region is currently a leading example for the rest of the country,

with the two largest bioenergy facilities in the North Coast: the Cape Byron Power

cogeneration plants at the Condong and Broadwater Sugar Mills (Ison et al., 2012, p. 9). The

Condong Plant produces 30 MW and the Broadwater Plant produces 38 MW

(www.ncef.net.au). A third facility, a biochar generator, was under consideration (Ison et al.,

2012, p. 9). The generator, which would be located at the Ballina Waste Management Centre,

would annually divert 29,000 tons of waste from landfills, produce 7,000 tons of biochar, and

would generate 6,000 MWh of electricity (Ballina Shire Council, n.d.). The Commonwealth

of Australia had funded AU$4.25 million for the project, but after four years of research it

was determined that the plant would not currently be economically feasible and the project

has since been put on hold (Cruickshank, 2015, pers. comm.). However, a collaboration of

organizations in the area has just received a grant to further research and implement

bioenergy ‘hubs’ in the region (Meyer, 2014).

1.4 Social Licenses

Even with all of the stated benefits, there is still concern that bioenergy may have

5

negative impacts, such as increased pollution, and as the Clean Energy Council states, a

“justifiable concern that an increase in the value of biomass resources and primary wastes,

arising from energy production could add demand for more ‘wastes’” (2008a, p. 14). The

Northern Rivers Region is known for its high biodiversity, and some community members

believe that bioenergy threatens this unique environment (Meyer, 2014, p. 12). In order to

address those concerns, it is important to gain informed and genuine community support for

the use of bioenergy. In recent years, industries have established a Social License to Operate

(SLO) in order to gain community support. An SLO is defined as “the ongoing acceptance or

approval for a development that is granted by the local community and other stakeholders”

(Hall, 2014, p. 219). Developed from the ideas of corporate social responsibility, SLOs were

first used in the mining industry to gain community support (Hall, Lacey, Carr-Cornish, &

Dowd, 2015, p. 301).

1.4.1 Why are they important?

Developers looking to establish an SLO begin from “the assumption that they do not

currently hold a social license, and that they must engage in ongoing, dialogic negotiation of

community and societal expectations and perceptions” (Hall, 2014, p. 223). The license is not

static; it must constantly be evaluated and renewed, as community perceptions change (Hall,

2014, p. 220). SLOs are important, as many industries and governments have recognized that

issues have often arisen because the community was not appropriately engaged in the

decision-making process (Hall, 2014, p. 232).

Hall explains, “An SLO will reflect transparency, legitimacy, credibility and trust,

will address power inequalities, and will develop meaningful partnerships” (2014, p. 224).

She further explains how to develop an SLO: 1) Identify stakeholders; 2) Define local issues

with key stakeholders; 3) Engage the community through active participation, information

dissemination, and consultation; and 4) Create an evaluation framework for the SLO (2014,

pp. 225-226). A mining representative interviewed in another study notes that measurement

and evaluation must be community-specific and cannot be a general assessment (Hall et al.,

2015, p. 307). A report published by the North Coast Energy Forum (2015) determined that a

successful SLO for the Northern Rivers Region would be identified through the presence of

positive press, local political support, community investment, use of bioenergy, reduced

waste, and the absence of “anti” lobbying groups (p. 2).

When developing a social license, it is important to consider and involve all affected

parties. A study conducted on waste management projects (2005, p. 9) identified three

stakeholder groups: community, industry, and government. More specifically, ‘community’

6

includes neighboring residents, workers, businesses and public institutions, such as schools,

community centers, and aged care facilities, the electorate (local, state, federal),

environmental NGOs, and special interest groups (Waste Management Association of

Australia, 2005, p. 9). Looking at bioenergy, the study notes that environmental, social, and

economic impacts must be considered in all stages of energy development; developers need

to consider the geographic location of the feedstocks and the distance they need to be moved

to the processing plant, the rate at which the feedstocks are produced, the reliability of the

feedstocks and extraction method, and the quality (Waste Management Association of

Australia, 2005, p. 33). No particular method of bioenergy is perfect, but the benefits need to

be maximized and the drawbacks minimized in order to successfully develop a social license.

Figure 3. Steps to develop a social license for bioenergy (Waste Management Association of Australia, 2005, p. 26)

7

One of the major shortcomings of SLOs is their lack of clarity, with one study calling

SLOs “amorphous” (Bice, 2014, p. 75). She continues,

Companies need to more clearly define the criteria which underpin their social licenses to facilitate more apparent and measurable indicators against which stakeholders can make their own judgments…[this] would require companies to develop better means of capturing and reporting on social data (2014, p. 75).

The social aspects of SLOs are particularly difficult to measure and identify and yet, they are

often the most controversial (Waste Management Association of Australia, 2005, p. 40). Bice

notes that issues often arise because there is a lack of transparency in regards to social issues

associated with the industry; she attributes this largely to the difficulty of measuring these

impacts (2014, p. 74). This is why proactive and informed education is necessary to ensure

community understanding (Waste Management Association of Australia, 2005, p. 40). In

conjunction with social issues, a study conducted by Paragreen & Woodley (2013) found that

conflict has previously arisen between industry and community because risks, benefits, and

other impacts are unequally distributed among community members (p. 49).

While SLOs are being used more commonly in the energy industry, little research has

been conducted on their use specifically regarding bioenergy. A study researching SLOs for

bioenergy in India found that a particular project did not “face any known community

conflicts because from the very beginning of the project, engagement with the community

and other stakeholders was undertaken since one of the important objectives of the project

was capacity building of the local communities” (Eswarlal, Vasudevan, Dey, & Vasudevan,

2014, p. 337). Eswarlal et al. further note that specific community needs should to be

identified and addressed in order to make bioenergy accepted (2014, p. 341).

1.4.2 Current Perceptions

The Northern Rivers Region has recently launched a strong anti-CSG campaign. The

CSG industry failed to develop a social license to begin drilling, and this was one of the main

reasons that the community reacted so strongly (Cruickshank, 2015, pers. comm.). In a region

that is already distrustful of energy industries, especially unconventional methods, it is

imperative that a social license is developed for bioenergy before it is further explored.

Without community support, the industry will fail; this is especially true for biomass because

it is a local energy source, with a majority of the feedstock being produced in the community

(Cruickshank, 2015, pers. comm.).

8

1.5 Study Goals and Justification

Sustainability includes the use of resources at a rate equal to or lower than the rate at

which they are replenished (Heinberg, 2010, p. 14). In this way, resources will be available

for long-term use and for future generations. Anaerobic digestion, as just one example,

encourages sustainability because it reuses waste that would otherwise be disposed of

permanently. It is a source of renewable energy because as humans continue to produce

waste, there will always be a source of energy. It produces sludge that can be composted and

returned to farms to make the soil more productive and reduce the reliance on fertilizers that

release greenhouse gases.

However, sustainability also encompasses social and economic sustainability.

Increasing the use of bioenergy in a place like the Northern Rivers, where the soils are fertile

also contributes to economic sustainability. Harnessing biomass localizes the production of

energy and stimulates the economy. According to Robert Putnam, social sustainability is the

maintenance of the “norms and networks that enable collective action” (Dillard, Dujon &

King, 2010, p. 21). In this regard, assessing community acceptance of bioenergy will foster a

sense of cooperation and trust between business and the general public. Additionally, it will

provide jobs to the locals.

It is clear that further research of bioenergy in Australia, but specifically in the

Northern Rivers Region, is important for the future of the planet. As of 2013, only about 13%

of electricity generated in New South Wales came from a renewable source (NSW

Government Department of Trade and Investment, 2014, p. 1). In order to meet the target of

20% renewable energy in NSW by 2020, additional alternative energy sources must be

developed (NSW Premier and Cabinet, 2006, p. 1). However, bioenergy will not be

successful unless there is community support. With so few studies assessing SLOs for

bioenergy, further research needs to be conducted. This study aims to assess the current

perceptions, benefits, and risks of bioenergy in the Northern Rivers Region in order to

determine how to best proceed. This will be done through interviews and surveys with key

stakeholders and the general public and the analysis of anaerobic digestion on a small-scale

dairy.

9

2. Methodology

2.1 Overview

I partnered with Sustain Northern Rivers and the NSW Office of Environment and

Heritage under the supervision of Paul Cruickshank and Natalie Meyer to develop my

project. Based in Alstonville, NSW and Nimbin, NSW I worked to study bioenergy in the

Northern Rivers Region, assess community support and awareness, and work to develop a

social license. My work consisted of two projects: to study community support and awareness

of bioenergy and to begin preliminary feasibility testing for an anaerobic digester at Nimbin

Valley Dairy. I used my research to study social and technical aspects of bioenergy, both of

which are important in its successful development. My research is part of a larger Bio-Hub

grant that was awarded to Sustain Northern Rivers in 2014 to study various aspects of

bioenergy. The results of the interviews and surveys will be used to determine the role

bioenergy will play in the region and to develop workshops and forums in order to better

engage the community in the future of the industry.

2.2 Ethical Considerations

Because I planned to conduct interviews and distribute online surveys, I needed to

consider ethical issues that might arise in the process. During the first week of the ISP, I

created a written consent form for interviewees, which included an agreement to participate

as well as how to acknowledge the interviewee. Every interviewee was required to sign the

consent form in order to be interviewed. I plan to use my results in the United States, so this

was vital.

For the online survey, I used the first question as the consent form. I kept it shorter (to

prevent discouragement), highlighting the purpose of the study, the minimal risks, the

confidentiality, and the voluntary participation of the survey. Participants that chose “I agree”

were allowed to continue on to the survey. Anyone that selected “I do not agree” was

automatically directed to the end of the survey. This ensured that all participants that actually

completed the survey had given consent.

All of the raw data, consent forms, and other identifiable material has been stored on

my personal computer in encrypted folders with password protection.

2.3 Background Research

I first spent time acquainting myself with the previous literature about bioenergy, its

use in the Northern Rivers Region, and the importance and history of social licenses for

10

industries. I read articles and books about the potential for bioenergy in Australia, before

focusing on projects in the Northern Rivers region. I then turned to articles about social

licenses and developing community support to learn about previous successes and failures

and their importance. The articles I found were mostly about social licenses in regard to coal

mining, CSG, and wind energy because very few articles have been written on this subject in

relation to bioenergy. I took notes on all of the articles that I read, and I used the sources and

notes to create a literature review and provide a basis for my interviews and online survey.

2.4 Nimbin Valley Dairy Pre-Feasibility Questionnaire

Nimbin Valley Dairy, a small goat and cow dairy located in Nimbin, NSW, is

interested in installing an anaerobic digester. Utilitas, a biogas company, has invested a

substantial amount of money in the project, and the NNIC in conjunction with the Bio-Hub

grant, has agreed to lead the research phase of the installation process. In order to build a

correctly sized digester, Utilitas needs to know how much feedstock the dairy has and the

nutrient content of those feedstocks. The company requires samples of all the feedstocks to

conduct tests that will measure the potential gas output. Before those tests can be done,

preliminary sampling must be done to analyze the nutrient content of the feedstocks. I spent a

day collecting samples on the farm to be sent to the Environmental Analysis Laboratory in

Lismore. On April 13, 2015, I collected cow, goat, and pig manure; cow and goat whey; dairy

wash-off; and goat bedding. These are all the potential feedstocks on the farm. Once those

results come back, the same samples will be recollected and sent to the lab at Utilitas to

determine the biogas potential. These tests will move the project to the investment phase.

In addition to the sampling, Utilitas required a questionnaire to be completed that

reported site information, current energy usage, current waste production, and current water

consumption. On April 17, 2015, I met with Paul Wilson, one of the co-owners of the dairy to

input the data for the questionnaire. This questionnaire will complement the sampling tests to

move Nimbin Valley Dairy one step closer to getting the anaerobic digester installed on their

property.

2.4.1 Analysis and Synthesis

Initially, I thought that I would be analyzing data and conducting a technical study to

provide a quantitative analysis. Because my results did not provide technical data, I chose to

use qualitative analysis. After my week in Nimbin, I reflected on my experience and what I

learned about the realities of purchasing and installing an anaerobic digester. This became an

11

informal participant observation, so I did not use a framework. However, I used my reflection

and personal observations to draw conclusions.

2.5 Assessing Current Perceptions in the Northern Rivers Region

2.5.1 Creating Interview Questions

During the first week of the ISP, I worked with Paul Cruickshank and Katrina Shields

to develop my interview questions. I created questions to fit under three general concepts:

benefits of bioenergy, risks of bioenergy, and appropriate steps to develop a social license. I

formatted the questions to move from general to more specific. The questions first focused on

the interviewee’s background (intellectual and career-related), before delving into the

benefits and drawbacks of bioenergy, the feedstocks, the extraction methods, and the politics

surrounding the issue in the Northern Rivers Region. I structured the interview with major

questions and follow-ups. I created an overview document that introduced the purpose of the

study and myself; it also included the interview questions, and consent form (see Appendix B

for interview questions).

2.5.2 Contacting Potential Interviewees

The next phase of preparation was contacting potential interviewees. After reading

about the NCEF, I created a general list of stakeholders that I was interested in interviewing;

I tried to target all industries that would be involved in bioenergy. From my general list, I

contacted NCEF members for specific names and recommendations. Paul provided additional

names and contact details; he also gave me organizations to contact to request specific

people. After compiling all of the recommendations, I had a list of 38 stakeholders. I created

a template email introducing the project and requesting an interview and sent individual

emails to each interviewee with the project overview attached, so they could get a clear

picture of my request. Over the next week and a half, I handled responses to my requests and

worked to schedule each interview to accommodate the participant.

2.5.3 Conducting Interviews

I conducted 24 interviews both in-person and via phone between April 13, 2015 and

May 1, 2015. The goal of the interviews was to get an in-depth perspective into bioenergy

from multiple viewpoints. I interviewed the following key stakeholders:

Tony Vancov via phone on April 13, 2015 Brian Restall via phone on April 14, 2015 Greg Reid via phone on April 20, 2015 Anonymous Interviewee in person on April 20, 2015

12

Thomas O’Reilly in person at Stone and Wood Brewery on April 20, 2015 Dr. Graeme Palmer in person at Southern Cross University on April 21, 2015 Dr. Doland Nichols in person at Southern Cross University on April 21, 2015 Michael Qualmann in person at Café Capello on April 21, 2015 Peter Robson via phone on April 22, 2015 John Walker via phone on April 22, 2015 Anonymous Interviewee via phone on April 23, 2015 Chris Connors via phone on April 23, 2015 Dailan Pugh in person at his home on April 23, 2015 Hogan Gleeson in person at Goanna Café on April 24, 2015 Jo Immig in person at Utopia Café on April 24, 2015 Cam Palmer via phone on April 27, 2015 Troy Green via phone on April 27, 2015 Dr. Kristin Den Exter via phone on April 27, 2015 Anonymous Interviewee in person on April 28, 2015 Kevin Trustum via phone on April 28, 2015 Dr. John Kaye via phone on April 30, 2015 Anonymous Interviewee via phone on April 30, 2015 Don Coyne via phone on May 1, 2015 Gary Murphy via phone on May 1, 2015

I ensured that the consent form was signed before I conducted the interviews. I took notes on

my computer during the interview and then reread them and polished them up after the

completion of the interview. Depending on the interview, I asked additional questions not

listed on the document as follow-up based on what the interviewee had said. Sometimes, I

skipped questions because I felt that they did not pertain to the specific interviewee. The

interviews lasted between 30-60 minutes. Immediately after completing the interview, I sent a

thank you email to the participant based on the template email I had created.

2.5.4 Preparing the Survey

Initially, I was not planning to distribute a survey; rather I wanted to focus on the

interviews. But, after a discussion with Paul, we realized that the interviews were only

targeting key stakeholders, and not the general community. We decided to create an online

survey using Qualtrics, which would be distributed to the community. I structured the

questions based on the interview questions, but made them more general and less technical.

While the interviews lasted between 30-60 minutes, the survey was intended to take no more

than 10 minutes, so as not to deter participants. Once an initial draft of the survey was

completed, I sent it to Katrina Shields, Mark Byrne, and Natalie Myer for review. They

submitted comments back to me, and I made changes accordingly. When it went live, I sent

the anonymous link to the NCEF members as my pilot study, and made further changes to the

questions and answer choices based on their feedback (see Appendix A for the survey).

2.5.5 Distributing the Survey

13

The survey went live on April 13, 2015. Paul handled the distribution because he had

access to several list serves. He sent it to his personal contact list, all of the General Managers

of the seven councils in the Northern Rivers Region (Ballina, Byron, Clarence Valley,

Kyogle, Lismore City, Richmond Valley, and Tweed councils) to be forwarded on to their

contacts, the Sustain Energy working group which is comprised of 27 organizations (to be

forwarded on to their contacts), and the OEH mailing list; the link was also included in the

NCEF newsletter. Because the link was sent to others to be forwarded on to additional

people, it is difficult to know the exact number of people that received the link. Additionally,

some people may have received it twice because they are on multiple list serves. However, it

is estimated that the link was sent to approximately 550 people. I created a template email to

accompany the link, which Paul used when he sent out the survey to his databases.

Additionally, I sent the link to Thomas O’Reilly at Stone and Wood Brewery; he was one of

my interviewees and he offered to send it to the 40 other staff members at Stone and Wood.

On April 14, 2015 Joanne Shoebridge interviewed me on her morning program for

ABC North Coast NSW Local Radio. She had contacted me the day before and requested to

conduct an interview with me after receiving the survey link. During the interview, she asked

about my study abroad program, my interest in the environment, my ISP project, a few

questions about bioenergy, the importance of a social license (in relation CSG), and the

survey. She shared the survey link on the radio’s Facebook page as well. The survey was

closed on May 2, 2015 with a total of 78 responses and an approximate 14% response rate.

2.5.6 Compiling Interview Results

After each interview, I read through the transcript and wrote down key messages or

common themes that other interviewees had mentioned. I noted any bias and the perspective

that the interviewee took. I used my analyses to find overarching themes and created

recommendations based on what people said. For my quantitative analysis I created a

framework of keywords that I had found in my interviews. Those keywords include base

load, complex, transportation costs, transparency, capital investment, and economic viability.

I tallied the number of interviewees that mentioned each of those words to find percentages. I

also tallied the number of interviewees that accepted each feedstock option and the number of

interviewees that preferred a specific conversion technology or strictly ruled one out. Lastly, I

tallied the number of interviewees that believed there was low community awareness about

bioenergy versus high community awareness. To support my qualitative analysis, I extracted

relevant and valuable quotes from various interviews to be used in my paper. I used all of

14

those calculations, as well as the common themes found throughout to make my

recommendations and draw conclusions.

2.5.7 Survey Analysis

I used the 78 responses I received on the survey to conduct both quantitative and

qualitative analysis. The survey host I used, Qualtrics, allowed me to conduct most of my

analysis online. I created a report, which displayed the number of people and corresponding

percentages that chose each answer for each question, as well as statistical information, such

as mean, variance and standard deviation. I was also able to view graphs for each response

and create tables. I exported the data to Excel so that I could create graphs and tables in a

more accessible format. To look for correlations, I used the cross tabulation function on the

program, which allowed me to compare responses to two different questions; the program

also calculated chi-square and t-test values. I looked at correlations between gender and

acceptable feedstocks, education level and acceptable feedstocks, maximum distance to

transport feedstocks and scale of bioenergy facilities, and between knowledge about

bioenergy and education level. In addition to my quantitative analysis, some of my questions

were open ended and I used those responses to make connections, extract quotes, and find

common themes, as I did with the interviews. I used all of my survey results in conjunction

with my interview results to draw conclusions.

2.6 Limitations and Constraints

There were a few factors that created limitations on the scope of my research.

Bioenergy is a large, complex field. There were many more areas I would have liked to

explore, but time limited me. In terms of my interviews, time was also the biggest inhibitor. I

sent out over thirty requests for interviews, and received over twenty responses; I would have

liked to interview anyone that had replied to me, but I set my limit at 25 participants because

I did not have enough time to complete them all. Additionally, some of my interviewees

suggested more people to contact and I did not have time to interview them either. However,

I have given all of those names to Sustain Northern Rivers for future projects and research.

As for the survey, the databases I used created a slight bias. The anonymous link was

sent to several environmental databases, so it selected for a certain portion of the population,

rather than be truly representative. We asked participants to forward it on to others to get as

wide of a response as we could, but inevitably some bias was created and not everyone

received the link to make it representative. I did not have access to all email addresses or

forums to reach everyone in the Northern Rivers Region, and I had to rely on the databases

15

that Paul had. This also presented another challenge. Because the survey was distributed via

list serves and asking others to forward it on, I had trouble knowing the exact number of

people that received the link to take the survey. This made determining the response rate

difficult, and I had to approximate. While the results might be slightly skewed, they are still

viable. Additionally, I added one question after the survey had already gone live, in

accordance with my advisor’s suggestion. Some of the first participants did not have a chance

to answer this question, but I believe that I changed it early enough so it did not skew the

data.

16

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Feasibility of Anaerobic Digestion for Nimbin Valley Dairy: A Case Study

3.1.1 Environmental Benefits- Powering the Farm

Nimbin Valley Dairy upholds itself to high sustainable principles. “We take the

sustainability of our farm very seriously and uphold our commitment to walk lightly on our

Earth” (nimbinvalley.com.au). They have already started a tree planting program to offset the

emissions from their goats and cows; to date they have planted enough trees to offset all of

their goats and are now working to offset the emissions from their cows

(nimbinvalley.com.au). To further these principles, Paul and Kerry Wilson, the two co-

owners of Nimbin Valley Dairy, initially met with Natalie Meyer, the Manager of NNIC, to

discuss the potential of installing a generation plant to supply their gas needs on the farm

(Meyer, 2015, pers. comm.). When asked why installing an anaerobic digester was important,

Paul Wilson responded, “Nimbin Valley Dairy has always been concerned about

environmental sustainability and that's a big part of the Nimbin Valley brand; [this generation

unit] dove tails nicely with where we want to take the business” (Wilson, 2015, pers. comm.).

However, upon initial analysis, Meyer, Wilson, and Wilson realized that the farm did

not use enough gas to make a generation plant viable. This highlights one of the first realities

of bioenergy; most bioenergy conversion processes in their cheapest forms produce methane

or some other form of gas, which is best suited to then be used for gas-powered devices. To

create electricity would require additional conversion equipment. Utilitas, Australia’s first

biomethane potential testing facility, signed on to the project shortly after the 2014 NCEF

and committed to invest a substantial amount of money into the project (Meyer, 2015, pers.

comm.). With these additional funds, Nimbin Valley Dairy could install a tri-generation plant

to produce heating, cooling and electricity. This highlights a second reality of bioenergy.

While capital investments are large, there are opportunities available to help farmers and

other industries establish bioenergy facilities.

The farm’s operations use a lot of electricity; the milking machines, air conditioning

units for the cooling rooms, the maturing and freezing rooms, and all the buildings on the

property are powered by electricity. Additionally, electricity is needed for cooling milk and to

recharge the portable cool box (Wilson, 2015, pers. comm.). Wilson estimates that the farm

uses 52 domestic gas bottles per year to heat the water and pasteurize the milk (2015, pers.

comm.). While it is unknown how much energy can be supplied by the tri-generation unit

until testing is complete, the anaerobic digester will be able to supply a portion of the farm’s

energy needs and reduce reliance on the grid, which is supplied by fossil fuels.

17

3.1.2 The Need to Grow

According to Meyer, Nimbin Valley Dairy currently has 25 milking cows and 200

goats (2015, pers. comm.). After initial inquiry, Utilitas determined that the waste produced

from those numbers would not be enough to supply very much energy nor make anaerobic

digestion an economically viable option. Because of this, the dairy will need to expand to

include 100 cows and 400 goats (Meyer, 2015, pers. comm.). This highlights a common

challenge associated with bioenergy: availability of a feedstock in large enough volumes.

When considering bioenergy, it is essential to ensure the availability of the feedstock. With

an increased number of animals, the farm will require additional equipment to accommodate

the livestock, which will incur higher energy requirements (Meyer, 2015, pers. comm.). The

farm has also noted that when they increase their livestock numbers, they will also switch

from their current water-cooling system to an ice block cooling system. This will decrease

their water usage, but will also increase their electricity consumption (Meyer, 2015, pers.

comm.). There will always be environmental trade-offs when considering various

technologies, such as bioenergy. This presents additional complexities, and consideration of

cost-benefit analyses and life cycle analyses could prove useful in determining the feasibility

of a bioenergy plant. Similarly, the farm will need to build a concrete feeding pad to collect

the manure and handle the additional livestock (Meyer, 2015, pers. comm.). Producing

concrete has greenhouse gas emissions associated with it, so this is another example where a

cost-benefit analysis or life cycle analysis would be useful to determine if the anaerobic

digester will actually reduce emissions.

3.1.3 Complexities of Measuring Output

In order to determine the appropriate size for the digester, Utilitas required a technical

questionnaire to be completed. The questionnaire included information about the physical

site, energy consumption, water consumption, and current waste disposal methods. Working

to complete this questionnaire highlighted additional complexities when it comes to installing

a bioenergy facility. The farm needs to expand in order to provide enough feedstocks, so their

energy consumption and waste amounts are going to be different than they currently are now.

However, they have not expanded yet, so it was hard to measure the potential consumption

statistics. This made completing the questionnaire more difficult, and I was forced to rely on

the current numbers and rates. Furthermore, some of the questions required very technical

responses that even Paul or Kerry Wilson did not know. This presented a second challenge to

accurately and successfully complete the questionnaire. My role in this process has taught me

18

that there are many hurdles to cross and many different factors to consider when installing an

anaerobic digester, or a bioenergy facility in general, even on a small scale.

3.1.4 Next Steps and Future Implications

Once the initial samples I collected are tested, those results will be inputted into the

questionnaire, and it can be sent to Utilitas. More samples of manures, bedding, and other

waste products will be collected in the coming weeks and sent to Utilitas with the

questionnaire. Utilitas will use those samples and the responses to the questionnaire to

determine the biomethane potential and to recommend a specific size for the digester,

bringing the process to the investment phase (Meyer, 2015, pers. comm.). In the meantime,

Nimbin Valley Dairy needs to begin increasing its livestock numbers in preparation for the

required feedstock volumes. At the completion of the project, they will have a tri-generation

anaerobic digester unit. The farm is also planning to build a door cellar building for tastings;

this building will have a display of the tri-generation unit, so that visitors and tour groups can

see the digester at work and better comprehend the energy that is being produced.

3.2 The Potential Bioenergy Industry

3.2.1 The Importance of Renewable Energy

Based on evidence from both the surveys and interviews, it is clear that renewable

energy is an important topic to address for residents of the Northern Rivers Region. In the

general public online survey, participants were asked about the importance of incorporating

renewable energy into the political conversation; 83% of respondents indicated that it was

“extremely important” to discuss renewable energy, while 9% said “important” and only 8%

said “not very important.” Comments made by several interviewees also supported the

community’s interest in renewable energy. An anonymous researcher explained in her

interview, “People move to this area because they love the environment and they have a

different set of values.” John Walker, the General Manager of the Richmond Valley Council,

supported this as well, stating, “The North Coast region in some areas has clearly rejected

CSG as an option, and [they] are very much into renewables as a provision of energy” (2015,

pers. comm.).

Furthermore, when asked if it was important to develop new sources of renewable

energy, 96% of interviewees agreed and one respondent noted that renewable energy was

important to develop, but believed all of the necessary sources already existed. Many

emphasized the need to move away from carbon intensive energy sources such as fossil fuels.

In his interview, Don Coyne, the Coordinator of Biochar-Fest, stated,

19

Obviously global warming is a bit of a concern and [is] contributed by old carbon and pumping it straight into the atmosphere. We need to get away from that, and there are opportunities to capture energy from other sources that are free and don’t damage the atmosphere as much (2015, pers. comm.).

Others also noted the potential economic benefits of switching to renewable energy sources.

Dr. Graeme Palmer, a Researcher at the Forest Research Center of Southern Cross

University, noted, “The U.S. has shown us recently that with investment in this field there is a

good level of energy security and less dependence of foreign countries that produce oil”

(2015, pers. comm.). The importance to increase renewable energy was evident among all

interviewees from people in the industry to environmental activists, regardless of their

background.

3.2.2 Current Community Perceptions

The online survey asked participants to rank solar energy, wind energy, and bioenergy

for commercial scale production. When compared with the other renewable options, 19.7% of

participants ranked bioenergy as their number one choice, while the majority of participants,

78.79%, ranked solar as number one. A majority of participants, 58.62%, ranked bioenergy as

the second best choice. Wind was ranked as the third best choice with 72.73% of respondents

indicating this, and only 1.51% of respondents choosing wind as their top choice. Therefore,

most of the community wants to see solar established on a commercial scale. The community

may have indicated these preferences because solar energy is more established; they may

know less about bioenergy. However, because it was ranked higher than wind, there is still

potential for bioenergy to be accepted by the community on a smaller scale.

Figure 4. Renewable energy Rankings by survey participants

20

3.2.3 Benefits and Concerns

Both the community and the interviewees highlighted several benefits of bioenergy.

In terms of environmental benefits, 80% of survey participants indicated that they thought

that bioenergy would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Several interviewees noted that this

could be as a result of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, capturing methane from landfills

or dairy farms, and capturing carbon by growing biomass or using biochar. In his interview,

Don Coyne explained, “Particularly with bioenergy it’s really about reducing waste rather

than sending it to landfills to release methane, when it could actually be utilized to create

electricity” (2015, pers. comm.). Gary Murphy explained that Lismore City Council has

resolved to be energy neutral by 2023 (2015, pers. comm.); bioenergy could be a part of that

solution.

Because the community ranked solar higher than bioenergy, it seems that bioenergy

will not be the dominant renewable energy source in the Northern Rivers Region. However,

many interviewees noted that no single energy source should dominate the field; it will take a

combination of multiple renewable energy sources to successfully become 100% renewable.

John Kaye, the Greens member of the NSW Parliament, has been campaigning to phase to a

100% renewable electricity sector. He stated that bioenergy would be a part of that transition,

if not a key role (2015, pers. comm.). Brian Restall explained that there is “no silver bullet.

Each technology has its positives and negatives…all [of the renewable energy sources] will

work together to deliver the right solution for any area” (2015, pers. comm.). In terms of its

role within the energy mix, five of interviewees specifically mentioned the use of bioenergy

as a base load energy source. While solar is a very useful source, there are periods of the year

and periods of the day when solar is not available, especially during peak use; unless

homeowners purchase batteries it will be difficult to go completely off the grid (Reid, 2015,

pers. comm.). Michael Qualmann further explained that while solar and wind energy is not

always reliable, bioenergy can be produced reliably all the time. He further rationalized that

even as solar batteries become more available, bioenergy is a better base load source because

it does not create the same toxic wastes that batteries do (2015, pers. comm.). As for local

industries, Greg Reid emphasized,

There’s a growing interest in this area in becoming independent from the grid. This will largely depend on solar and battery storage, but there’s an essential role for bioenergy particularly where it can be combined for cogeneration for local industries (2015, pers. comm.).

21

Cam Palmer explained, “[Bioenergy is] one of the few forms of renewable energy that can

provide base load electricity generation. The energy in biomass is stored energy- it can be

viewed as a ‘battery’” (2015, pers. comm.).

Many also emphasized the importance of waste reduction and diversion. Seventy-one

percent of survey respondents acknowledged that bioenergy would divert waste from landfills

as a benefit. Hogan Gleeson, the Director of Urban Ecological Systems, works to turn waste

into something useful. He has been studying bioenergy as one option and believes that it can

have a role in reducing waste (2015, pers. comm.).

Aside from environmental benefits, many also noted economic and social benefits.

First of all, bioenergy can put revenue back into the local economy, rather than pay foreign

energy suppliers. It can provide financial benefits to the industries that produce their own

energy as an additional source of income (Coyne, 2015, pers. comm.). An anonymous

interviewee also noted that bioenergy can be an opportunity for group investment, which

creates a local energy source and reduces reliance on foreign energy companies. Dr. Graeme

Palmer further stated, “Bioenergy has one distinctive advantage where you have control over

the market” (2015, pers. comm.). Additionally, 91% of survey respondents indicated that

bioenergy had the potential to be a reliable, local energy source. For a region that is fairly

rural, Troy Green and John Kaye pointed out that bioenergy can help reengage struggling

farmers and provide an additional income (2015, pers. comm.). For many potential waste

streams, it costs money to dispose of them, but if they were redirected to bioenergy processes,

they could generate revenue instead (Palmer, 2015, pers. comm.). From an industry

perspective, Thomas O’Reilly at Stone and Wood Brewery explained that breweries produce

a lot of liquid organic waste that must be treated in order to go down the drain. This is costly,

but if it could produce electricity for the brewery, it would save money and be more

sustainable (2015, pers. comm.). One of the most common benefits that were mentioned by

both survey participants and interviewees was the creation of local jobs. Sixty-two percent of

survey respondents believed that bioenergy would provide job opportunities. Greg Reid

supported this statistic, explaining that because bioenergy comes from multiple sources and

has multiple components in its production, it will provide more local jobs than a distant

energy provider (2015, pers. comm.).

However, both survey participants and interviewees also expressed concerns.

Environmentally, many people voiced concern with increased threats to native forests and

biodiversity with 52% of survey respondents indicating this on their surveys. The wood

chipping and timber industry have a bad history in this Region, and many people are skeptical

22

that bioenergy could turn into something similar. Furthermore, Dailan Pugh explained that

bioenergy is a threat to what he believes are genuine renewable sources, such as solar and

wind. He also indicated concern that the bioenergy industry would abuse native forests,

explaining, “NSW has recently given allowance for native wood chips to be burned for

electricity” (2015, pers. comm.). Additionally, some expressed concern with pollution

associated with the conversion of biomass into energy. Forty-three percent of survey

participants indicated concern with increased emissions from combustion, and Greg Reid also

made mention of this potential risk (2015, pers. comm.). Peter Robson expressed concern

with homeowners taking measures into their own hands and producing bioenergy incorrectly

so that it creates health hazards (2015, pers. comm.). Some also worried about the best uses

for potential feedstocks. Several survey participants and interviewees voiced concern that

certain feedstocks would compete with the food industry, in terms of energy crops or with the

composting industry, in terms of certain waste products. As further research is conducted on

potential feedstocks for the region, a full life cycle analysis should be completed to consider

the best end use for the various feedstocks.

From an economic perspective, one of the biggest concerns was about transportation

of feedstocks. Thirteen interviewees specifically mentioned transportation costs making

bioenergy difficult to establish. Additionally, 73% of survey participants were concerned

about trucking feedstocks long distances to the processing plant. Michael Qualmann

expressed concern that trucking would be a problem because it would create extra road

traffic, and would be an expensive cost (2015, pers. comm.). Because it was one of the largest

concerns expressed, it should be carefully considered in further analysis and exploration.

Finally, in terms of economic risks, many interviewees expressed concern with economic

viability. Cam Palmer explained that electricity currently has a low value as well as

Renewable Energy Certificates, so there is the potential that bioenergy may cost more to

produce than the revenue earned (2015, pers. comm.).

While there are some concerns about bioenergy, most are about specific feedstocks or

technologies, rather than bioenergy as a whole. Based on evidence from the public and the

experts, it seems that the benefits outweigh the risks for certain types of bioenergy, and thus

these options should be furthered explored. One potential bias should be noted, however.

While the community survey revealed preliminary support for bioenergy, it is possible that

people that do not support the industry or have no knowledge of bioenergy chose to ignore

the survey instead. Because of this the results may be slightly skewed. As research regarding

community acceptance is further explored, researchers should be aware of this issue and

23

consider it as they conduct future studies. As Hogan Gleeson stated, “Provided it’s a

genuinely sustainable approach, then there aren’t many downsides, but without integrated

planning, then there are potentially many downsides” (2015, pers. comm.). This is why

proper planning is so important.

3.2.4 Potential Feedstocks for the Region

In terms of the potential feedstocks for bioenergy, the following were identified as

possible options for the region: agricultural waste, municipal green waste, timber and forestry

waste, and energy crops. Both survey participants and interviewees expressed various

opinions and preferences regarding feedstocks based on their viability and availability. Based

on the results from the online survey, agricultural wastes, including wet wastes, were the top

feedstock options with 78% of respondents accepting agricultural residues and 86% of

respondents accepting wet wastes. Municipal and commercial waste also had high acceptance

from the community, with each receiving a 78% acceptance level. Forestry wastes from

native forests received one of the lowest acceptance levels with only 34% of respondents

indicating they would be willing to support native forestry wastes, while a slightly higher

61% of respondents accepted forestry waste from plantations. Lastly, energy crops also

received low acceptance levels, with only 34% of respondents supporting their use.

Figure 5. Percentage of survey respondents that accept each potential feedstock for use in bioenergy projects

24

The category of agricultural waste includes both crop residues and livestock waste.

One of the largest agricultural residue sources for the region is sugarcane trash and associated

product known as bagasse. As a byproduct, it is an inevitable waste and must be disposed of,

so it does not have many better uses. Energy production from bagasse has been occurring in

the region for over 120 years according to Brian Restall, the Chief Executive of Cape Byron

Power (2015, pers. comm.). They own and operate two plants, Condong and Broadwater;

each generates 30 MW of energy (Restall, 2015, pers. comm.). Furthermore, Cam Palmer

noted that sugarcane trash is a beneficial feedstock because there is an established industry

with infrastructure already in place; this would decrease investment costs (2015, pers.

comm.). However, some have voiced concern with this industry. The plants are not running at

full capacity because there is not enough available feedstock. Peter Robson attributes this

partly due to miscalculations on the actual available feedstock. He explained that farmers

need to burn the paddocks every five years to prevent bacterial build up in the soil and this

was not factored in to the available feedstocks; with the burning every five years, the amount

of available feedstock is actually less than what was previously thought (2015, pers. comm.).

Additionally, sugar cane trash is dry while sugar bagasse has a high moisture content.

Because of this, they often cannot be burned together, making use of the feedstocks together

difficult (Palmer, 2015, pers. comm.). However, it is readily available and as an anonymous

interviewee noted, Brazil has utilized its sugar cane wastes and is now 60% renewable. While

there have been some problems with the sugar cane industry and energy production, it has a

lot of potential, and because the infrastructure already exists, it should be considered for

future bioenergy projects. In order to resolve problems with available feedstocks and

improved efficiency, further research should be conducted on how to best utilize the waste,

considering the full life cycle. Aside from sugar cane, the macadamia industry is very large in

this region, and several interviewees, as well as survey participants, specifically mentioned

using macadamia nut shells for bioenergy, especially because the macadamia processing

plants have large heat requirements. Don Coyne explained that macadamia shells also have a

lot of potential because they are processed in only a few places, so the waste stream is already

concentrated and needs minimal transport (2015, pers. comm.). Any crop residues that are not

already highly concentrated are probably best left to decompose as compost. Crop residues

that are too spread out or in smaller volumes are not economically viable to collect and

transport and provide a greater environmental benefit being returned to the ground.

The other option for agricultural waste is livestock waste, and this option has received

overall acceptance with much fewer problems. Several interviewees emphasized that

25

livestock waste often has no other use and if not disposed of properly can contaminate

waterways and release methane into the atmosphere. With Casino as the beef capital of NSW

and a large number of piggeries and dairy farms in the region, a large volume of potential

feedstock exists already. With so few objections to livestock waste as a feedstock, this is a

very promising option and should be the top option to be explored. Additionally, as the

feedstock is explored, cooperatives and bio-hubs should be formed so that waste producers

concentrated in the same region can combine feedstocks into one facility to reduce

investment costs and minimize transportation.

The second best option is the use of municipal waste, which includes organic waste

and green waste (i.e. garden waste) from homeowners and municipalities. It has potential

because it is already collected in some areas, so this would avoid additional transportation

costs. One of the biggest challenges is the fact that Lismore already composts its green waste.

Several interviewees claimed that this was better than using it for bioenergy because it returns

the nutrients to the soil and is financially a better investment. So, while there is a large

availability and it is already collected in some locations in the Region, it is not currently

viable because it has another use (Trustum, 2015, pers. comm.). Additionally, Cam Palmer

noted potential problems with contamination and associated pollution due to accidentally

burning contaminated green waste (2015, pers. comm.). John Kaye also supported this,

explaining that in order to maintain good air quality, proper separation technologies are

needed, which are expensive (2015, pers. comm.). Jo Immig emphasized a legitimate concern

that utilizing municipal wastes for energy promotes creating more waste to feed the

production. In reality, we should be focusing on how to reduce waste through less

consumption (2015, pers. comm.). However, municipal waste should not be eliminated as a

viable feedstock option. Potential volumes and availability should be explored in locations

that are not composting the material to assess if it would better serve to be composted or

turned into energy. Additionally, the community indicated strong acceptance for wet wastes,

which include human wastes at sewage treatment plants. This feedstock is already collected

and has no other use, so energy should be collected from these plants as well as landfills that

already exist.

Timber waste is perhaps the most controversial feedstock option. Several interviewees

did explain that timber waste is readily available in the region. Within the timber waste

category, there are two types of waste: processing wastes and thinnings left in the forest;

these can come from native forests or plantations. The first issue arises with native forests.

Doland Nichols, a researcher at the Forest Research Center at Southern Cross University,

26

explained that while he believes native forests are the best option for bioenergy in the

Northern Rivers Region, most people in the community do not support using native forests.

He continued that energy has too low of a value compared to other values of leaving the

native forests alone (2015, pers. comm.). Dailan Pugh made the point that leaving forests

alone can actually absorb much more carbon than using them to replace fossil fuels (2015,

pers. comm.). Using native forests for bioenergy also promotes the wrong message, as John

Kaye explained,

[We should] rule out native forestry waste largely because Australia should be moving out of native forestry use…if you connect the native forest and the energy industries, then you create a further appetite for native forest use and it’s not sustainable (2015, pers. comm.).

With such low community acceptance, the Northern Rivers Region should not pursue native

forests as a feedstock for bioenergy.

The other timber option is the use of plantation waste as a feedstock. This has a higher

level of acceptance, but is still accompanied with problems. Plantations do produce a lot of

waste. Doland Nichols explained that with eucalypt plantations growers would need to plant

more trees than they want in order to shade out weeds. But, to prevent disease, growers need

to thin out some of their trees. These have the potential to be used as a bioenergy feedstock.

However, even though these feedstocks are available, they are not necessarily economically

viable. Dr. Graeme Palmer explained that there are high transportation costs with removing

thinnings from the forest (2015, pers. comm.). Other interviewees also made similar

comments. While there are costs associated with removing the thinnings, John Walker also

noted that there is no longer a market for timber in this region, so it might be worth while

exploring some of these plantations for energy purposes to generate revenue that has been

lost. However, at this time, it does not seem viable to pursue forestry residue as a feedstock

for bioenergy on a commercial scale because of community concerns as well as economic

impediments; there are much better feedstocks available that should be pursued first. If

forestry waste is eventually explored as an option, it is imperative to set strict regulations and

clearly define “waste.” Many interviewees expressed concern that the term “waste” will be

abused by the forestry industry as it has been in the past. Much of what is currently

considered waste actually has a value, according to Dailan Pugh. Regulations need to clearly

explain that forestry residue can only be used as a feedstock if it is a genuine waste with no

other purpose, which is the case with some saw mill waste (2015, pers. comm.).

27

In addition to timber waste is non-native timber, particularly camphor laurel, an

invasive species that has grown rapidly in the Region. Some have suggested using this plant

as a feedstock because it is so readily available and removing it would help to address its

invasive problems. Interviewees expressed mixed opinions about this option; five people

were specifically for its use, while four were specifically against its use. It has been explored

in the past to supplement the bagasse at Condong and Broadwater, but many problems arose.

It was removed poorly and this created problems with erosion and water quality; its poor

removal gave it a bad reputation (Den Exter, 2015, pers. comm.). This should not rule it out

as an option, however. Further research should be conducted on its viability and if it is

determined to be a viable feedstock option, strict regulations need to be created to regulate

where and how the camphor laurel is removed to prevent some of the problems that arose last

time.

The last potential option for feedstocks is energy crops. This received very low

support from community members as well as interviewees. Many interviewees explained that

growing crops for bioenergy would create negative competition for the food industry and

reduce food security. Additionally, many noted that growing the energy crops potentially

required more energy and financial investments than the returns. Furthermore, there is not

currently a market for energy crops, and thus they would not bring in a significant amount of

revenue. The only advantage that an anonymous interviewee noted was the potential to grow

crops on marginal land to generate additional income for struggling farmers. However, this

one benefit does not outweigh the drawbacks. At this time, energy crops should not explored

in the region.

In conclusion, based on viability, availability, and community acceptance, agricultural

waste, including crop residues and livestock wastes, is the best feedstock to pursue for

bioenergy in the region. There is potential for other options, but further research needs to be

conducted first. When determining how and where the feedstock should be used, the entire

life cycle needs to be considered and a cost-benefit analysis needs to be done to determine if

the energy produced outweighs the transportation costs and other associated risks. In order

for it to truly be sustainable and renewable, the feedstock must have no better use and this

must be considered in the cost-benefit analysis as well. Finally, there is still a lot unknown

regarding the amount of feedstock available. A thorough feasibility study should be

conducted for the region that outlines exactly what is available. This will provide a better

understanding of how to proceed.

28

3.2.5 Feasible Conversion Technologies

In terms of conversion technologies to process the potential feedstocks, there are three

major methods: anaerobic digestion, combustion, and pyrolysis. Each option has pros and

cons with associated trade-offs. From the community’s perspective, anaerobic digestion was

the favored method, with 58% of respondents selecting this option.

Table 1. Preferred conversion method indicated by survey participants

Bioenergy Technologies Percentage of Respondents (%)

Combustion 12

Pyrolysis 25

Anaerobic Digestion 58

Torrefaction 5

The interviewee results did not show a clear preference for any specific method, but almost

all of the interviewees supported anaerobic digestion.

Anaerobic digestion works best with liquids and is particularly useful on farms, so

this is an attractive option because the most viable feedstocks are agricultural residues,

including wet livestock waste (Palmer, 2015, pers. comm.). It produces very few emissions

and the byproduct, digestate, can be composted and returned to the soil (Immig, 2015, pers.

comm.). Immig stated, “…Anaerobic digestion doesn’t have the same pollution issues, which

is good, and we’re not entrenching a system that’s making more pollution. It can also be done

off the grid and locally, and that’s a positive” (2015, pers. comm.). Finding a use for

livestock wastes prevents water contamination, which has often been a problem (Pugh, 2015,

pers. comm.). An anonymous interviewee noted, however, that anaerobic digestion is only

good on a small scale, so it is not viable on a large scale. As with the feedstocks, economic

viability is an important consideration. Before any anaerobic digesters are installed, research

needs to be conducted to determine that there is enough feedstock available. This is where the

idea of a bio-hub could be useful. If industries within a concentrated region bring all of their

feedstock to one digester, then it may make it more feasible. This is only one minor drawback

compared to many benefits, so anaerobic digestion should be pursued.

Combustion, in comparison, is a bit more complicated. Some interviewees believed

that combustion was a good source because it maintained carbon neutrality. Brian Restall

29

explained that combustion does not have emissions that contribute to climate change because

the biomass sequesters the carbon that is released in the combustion process. Furthermore, he

claimed that combustion was the only proven method for solid biomass, such as sugar cane

trash (2015, pers. comm.). It also produces more energy than pyrolysis. However, others

expressed concern and disagreed with the carbon neutrality claim. Dailan Pugh, Dr. Graeme

Palmer, and Jo Immig specifically expressed concern about the associated smoke pollution.

The process releases dioxins and other nanoparticles of pollution, such as lead and mercury

(Immig, 2015, pers. comm.). Additionally, they made the claim that combustion was not

carbon neutral. While these are legitimate concerns, combustion is the cheapest option, and

infrastructure has already been built. Cam Palmer explains,

The cogeneration projects at Condong and Broadwater have significant spare capacity and I suggest that the cost of producing additional renewable energy for the North Coast from these plants would be far cheaper (per MWh) than any alternative technology or project due to the ‘sunk’ capital and fully developed infrastructure (2015, pers. comm.).

However, because it has associated health and pollution risks, further research should be

conducted to determine if the benefits outweigh the costs. The current plants should not be

shut down, but they should not be expanded until a more complete economic and

environmental analysis is done.

Pyrolysis is still a very new technology, so there was no agreement among the experts

yet as to whether or not this was a good option. Additionally, there are many different forms

of pyrolysis and some are believed to be better than others. Some interviewees were excited

by the potential to create biochar, which they believed could sequester carbon. Don Coyne

also mentioned the production of wood vinegar, which can replace a lot of the agrochemicals

used for agriculture. An anonymous interviewee also explained that there has been

community interest in pyrolysis and the production of biochar. As a technology, Hogan

Gleeson claimed that it is cleaner than combustion and can be used in conjunction with

combined heat and power systems. However, others remained skeptical. Some, such as Jo

Immig, still believe that it releases pollutants and is not carbon neutral (2015, pers. comm.).

Others argue that it is still too expensive on a large scale. And others still, such as Dr.

Graeme Palmer, were skeptical of the benefits of biochar (2015, pers. comm.). It seems that it

has a lot of potential, but it is evident that extensive research needs to be conducted still to

determine the viability and benefits of pyrolysis. It should not be disregarded completely, but

should not be pursued until further research has been conducted.

30

3.2.6 Appropriate Scale

Based on the available feedstocks and the preferred conversion technologies,

bioenergy is best suited to be created on a small to medium scale. According to several

interviewees, it will never be a dominant energy source, but as mentioned above it can serve

as a base load source to provide reliable energy during peak times. A few interviewees and

survey participants did think that bioenergy could be a major supplier but they were in the

minority. Several interviewees provided useful suggestions as to how to best utilize the

available feedstocks on an appropriate scale. Troy Green suggested that small farms in close

proximity to one another form a cooperative to collectively produce energy with their

feedstocks (2015, pers. comm.). This would cut down on investment costs and maximize the

energy produced. Gary Murphy also suggested building bioenergy facilities in conjunction

with solar farms to provide the base load power needed (2015, pers. comm.). While some

interviewees did not think bioenergy would be economically viable on a small scale, such as

on-site production, others thought that the larger productions would not be viable because of

the transportation costs associated with bringing large volumes of feedstock to one location.

It seems that size and scale of bioenergy projects will depend on the conversion technology,

feedstock availability, transportation costs, and other related factors. No one size or scale can

be recommended for the region, as research is necessary on a case-by-case basis.

Survey participants were asked the ideal scale they would like to see bioenergy

established as well as the maximum distance they thought feedstocks should be transported.

When cross tabulated and compared for a correlation, the chi-square value was 16.35, which

is statistically significant at p=0.05. However, it should be noted that more than 20% of the

expected frequencies were less than five, which may have contributed to some inaccurate

values. When looking at the graph, though, it does appear that a relationship exists between

maximum distance for transportation and scale. This suggests that scale will partially be

determined by the transportation costs and community opinions regarding those costs.

31

3.3 Developing a Social License in the Northern Rivers Region

3.3.1 Community Awareness

The survey results indicate that there is some knowledge, but not extensive

knowledge regarding bioenergy. When asked how they would rate their own knowledge of

bioenergy, 64% of respondents indicated that they had some knowledge of bioenergy. A

smaller number, only 23%, said they had extensive knowledge.

Table 2. Community knowledge regarding bioenergy based on self-rating

Knowledge Level Percentage of Respondents (%)

Never heard of it 0

Little Knowledge 14

Some Knowledge 64

Extensive Knowledge 23

While there is some knowledge, a majority of the interviewees believed that there was low

community awareness. Fourteen interviewees reported low community awareness, while only

five claimed that community awareness was high. Dr. Graeme Palmer specifically stated that

people do not understand what bioenergy really is because a lot of the information currently

circulating the community is incorrect (2015, pers. comm.). Jo Immig supported this claim as

well stating,

If you talk to the average person about bioenergy then they probably just think about burning trees, which they’ll have a concern about. They may also know about biofuel crops because that’s been big in other countries, and they would have concerns about that too (2015, pers. comm.).

Bioenergy is clearly more than just burning trees and creating biofuel, so these

misconceptions must be corrected. This suggests that a strong education component is

necessary to develop bioenergy appropriately.

3.3.2 Redefining Bioenergy

Before pursuing a social license for bioenergy, the term “bioenergy” needs to be more

clearly defined. As several interviewees commented, bioenergy is a very broad term and

encompasses many feedstocks and conversion methods. Because some feedstocks and

conversion methods have received preliminary acceptance, while others have been rejected,

32

the term bioenergy needs to have a more specific and explicit definition tailored to the

Northern Rivers Region. An anonymous interviewee suggested that bioenergy needed to

receive a “rebranding” to make it more contemporary and dispel any misconceptions. The

best way to give bioenergy a new name is to assess what feedstocks and technologies are

feasible for this Region, so that bioenergy can be advertised as such; this way, people will

know exactly what to expect. While one anonymous interviewee suggested simplifying the

definition to make it more comprehendible to the general public, Kristen Den Exter warned

that getting too general was not a good idea either because it creates the problem of having a

definition that is too vague (2015, pers. comm.). When redefining bioenergy, there needs to

be a balance between specificity and simplicity.

3.3.3 What Constitutes a Social License?

As certain aspects of bioenergy are explored and researched, it is important to develop

a social license. As a region that is especially environmentally conscious, it is important that

the community is accepting of new energy sources. An anonymous researcher stated, “This

area has a very specific set of values and they want to see things done properly. People are

inherently suspicious of new developments” (2015, pers. comm.). This is just one of the

reasons why community engagement is so important. One of the major themes in developing

a social license that several interviewees discussed was transparency throughout the entire

process. This aspect was also emphasized in Hall’s study of developing a social license for

wind energy in Australia (2014). Furthermore, decision-making should involve active

community engagement. Hogan Gleeson clarified that a social license “identifies all the

stakeholders, not just the big players and utilizes their skills and experiences to bring about a

genuinely integrated solution” (2015, pers. comm.). In terms of community engagement,

Dailan Pugh explained that the community needs to know exactly what is being proposed and

how the plan will be executed, so that they have enough information to make an educated

decision (2015, pers. comm.). Thinking about bioenergy specifically, Brian Restall

emphasized, “The key…to develop a social license for biomass is that the feedstock truly

needs to be a waste product from another industry…if it’s not it will be difficult to make the

case” (2015, pers. comm.). Getting the social license will most likely involve conducting

further surveys with the community and holding forums and workshops to get a more in

depth understanding of the community’s opinions (Immig, 2015, pers. comm.). Immig further

characterized a social license as a grassroots, democratic tool (2015, pers. comm.) and an

anonymous researcher described it as a deliberative democracy process. These descriptions of

33

a social license are similar to those described in a study of CSG in the Northern Rivers

Region (Luke, Lloyd, Boyd & Den Exter, 2013).

One of the main reasons that the CSG industry was rejected in this region was

because it failed to get a social license. However, the events that occurred surrounding CSG

can teach us a lot about how to proceed with bioenergy. According to an anonymous

researcher, Metgasco tried to convince the community that CSG was a good thing, but even

though the community rejected this, the industry tried to push forward anyway. This was the

first mistake. Kristin Den Exter explained that community engagement does not necessarily

result in a social license. There needs to be community acceptance as well as engagement

(2015, pers. comm.) Hall notes in her study of social licenses that there are different levels of

approval, supporting the claim that there needs to be acceptance as well as engagement

(2014, p. 224). Metgasco initially had a social license; they advertised their industry as green

and a good alternative to coal. At first, the community supported their efforts (Den Exter,

2015, pers. comm.). However, once they learned of the negative impacts that were occurring

in Queensland, the community changed their opinions and withdrew the social license (Den

Exter, 2015, pers. comm.). Metgasco went ahead with operations regardless. This also

highlights another theme: social licenses are not permanent and are constantly changing. Hall

also came to a similar conclusion in her research (2014, p. 305); other previous studies also

came to this conclusion. “Given the push back on CSG, I think whatever technology you use

for bioenergy it must have social, environmental, and social credibility” (Anonymous

interviewee, 2015, pers. comm.). In order to achieve this, there needs to be a major

educational component so that the public can make an educated decision.

3.3.4 Public Education

In order to allow the community to make the best decision, a major educational

campaign needs to be executed. In addition to the claims about low community awareness,

five interviewees specifically mentioned that bioenergy was complex, contributing to further

misinformation. Brian Restall explained that bioenergy is a difficult concept to understand

because it is not as tangible or visually comprehendible as solar or wind energy (2015, pers.

comm.). Jo Immig’s organization, the National Toxics Network, explains bioenergy by

dividing it into two categories: hot and cool technologies. This separates anaerobic digestion

from combustion and pyrolysis (2015, pers. comm.) and is a good example of how bioenergy

can be simplified and better understood. Michael Qualmann, as well as other interviewees

and survey participants, suggested that bioenergy could be better understood if pilot plants

and other demonstrations are established in the region (2015, pers. comm.). This will allow

34

community members to see bioenergy for themselves. For example, this is where the

anaerobic digester at Nimbin Valley Dairy has potential- as a demonstration for the

community. The educational aspect needs to also show how bioenergy aligns with other

community values, such as climate change mitigation and reducing reliance on foreign

energy, as well as highlight economic advantages (Anonymous interviewee, 2015, pers.

comm.).

In terms of physically reaching the community, a multitude of networks were

suggested, ranging from social media to newspapers and radio to documentaries. Almost

every interviewee explained that media played almost no role in educating them about

bioenergy; they further stated that they rarely see stories about bioenergy in the media.

However, they also noted that media was a great tool to educate the community. Therefore,

bioenergy should be better integrated into the mainstream media as solar energy has been.

Many interviewees also suggested forums, workshops, educational pamphlets, and door

knocking to increase awareness.

The educational campaign should also target specific populations. To reach the largest

number of people, it would be productive to target the “loudest” or most influential people in

the community. This supports the Amoeba Model, which suggests targeting change agents

and transformers to promote a campaign (Bragg, 2015). Many interviewees also suggested

targeting the agricultural sector because they will have a major role in the development of

both the social license and the industry; they will provide a majority of the feedstocks. If the

farmers are not well educated, bioenergy will never receive a social license nor will it move

forward.

3.3.5 Government’s Role

In addition to an educational campaign, the government will play a large role in the

development of the bioenergy industry. Several interviewees indicated that government has a

responsibility to provide funding and financial incentives. Troy Green explained that like any

other new industry, the government will need to assist with initial capital costs through tax

breaks, incentives, and rebates (2015, pers. comm.). Kevin Trustum also suggested that the

government could help with electricity sales because they have some control over that (2015,

pers. comm.). The government should also develop strong policies to help regulate the

industry, setting specific mandates and rules regarding what, where, and how bioenergy is

created, as suggested by Hogan Gleeson. Furthermore, these compliance regulations must be

long-term and consistent (2015, pers. comm.). The decision-makers and government officials

need to have an active role in both the development of the social license and the development

35

of the industry. While government is an important avenue, Thomas O’Reilly also pointed out

that while “community engagement should be done through appropriate levels of

government, businesses are very visible to the community…and therefore have an obligation

to the community to support [education] and production [of bioenergy]” (2015, pers. comm.).

Therefore, businesses have an important role to play too, especially those that will be directly

involved in the bioenergy industry.

3.3.6 Next Steps and Future Work

There is a lot of work that must be done before a social license can be developed. A

three-phased campaign needs to be launched. An extensive feasibility study should be

conducted to assess the feasible feedstocks and associated conversion technologies. Once the

potential options are better understood, a focus group should be formed to create a proposal

for the community that explains exactly what will be developed and pursued in the Northern

Rivers Region. Based on comments made and attitudes expressed by various interviewees,

there is a lot of mistrust between environmental organizations and the industry. Several

interviewees received a majority of their knowledge about bioenergy from industry and

personal experiences, so the industry certainly has a lot to offer. Chris Connors, the Chief

Executive of NSW Sugar, expressed interest in getting people together to talk with the sugar

industry about how bioenergy should proceed (2015, pers. comm.). At the same time, the

environmental organizations have expressed legitimate concerns that need to be considered as

well. These two groups should be brought together, along with scientists, economists, policy

makers, and general community members, to form the focus group. A study conducted by

Ison et al. (2012) on the future of energy skills in the North Coast region also emphasized the

importance of bringing various stakeholders together. The proposal should explain potential

benefits, risks, and unknowns.

Before presenting this to the community, the education campaign should be executed,

so that when the proposal is presented to the community, they understand exactly what is

being proposed. The third aspect of the campaign is government and industry involvement;

both need to be on board before proceeding to the social license. These are the next steps for

bioenergy in the Northern Rivers Region. Once this has been accomplished, community

perceptions can be reassessed and a social license can be developed.

36

4. Conclusion

A lot of work must be done before a social license for bioenergy can actually be

developed. Bioenergy is such a broad term, and simply developing a social license for

bioenergy will not work. More extensive feasibility studies should be conducted to determine

the seasonal availability of feedstocks and conversion technologies because these are

insufficiently detailed for the Northern Rivers Region. Economic viability must be factored in

with availability, as well as the entire life cycle of the feedstocks, including transportation

costs. Once it has been determined what is available and feasible for the region, I suggest that

the Sustain Energy Working Group (a part of Sustain Northern Rivers) take responsibility to

form a focus group to create an explicit proposal detailing exactly what the community can

expect to be developed. The focus group should include participants from industry,

environmental groups, academics, economists, politicians, and interested community

members. This proposal should cover feedstocks, their quantity, the conversion process, and

necessary regulations.

Based on preliminary data, crop residues and livestock wet waste were the most

accepted feedstocks in the Region. Forest waste from plantations should not be explored as

an option until further research and assessment has been conducted; native forestry waste

should not be canvassed at all because it received low acceptance from the community. As

for conversion technologies, anaerobic digestion was the most widely accepted by both

survey participants and interviewees. Therefore, this should be the primary conversion

technology explored. Because combustion has already been established in the region, further

analysis should be conducted to assess community acceptance and availability of feedstocks

to determine if operations should be expanded. The proposal created by the focus group

should take these results into consideration.

Education needs to be a major component of this process, so that the community can

make an informed decision about how to proceed, since the survey showed that community

awareness is relatively low. Additionally, a lot of misconceptions currently exist about

bioenergy, partly because of its broad definition. The educational campaign needs to dispel

any myths and clarify the different forms of bioenergy, so that when a proposal is released

the community knows exactly what is being covered. All major media sources should be

utilized as well as forums, workshops, and pamphlets. This campaign should target both the

general public as well as potential stakeholders that will have direct involvement in the

industry, such as the macadamia industry and farmers. Workshops should be held to

specifically bring these groups together to potentially create cooperatives and agreements.

37

A major part of the educational component is creating demonstration plants or pilot

plants so that the public can more tangibly comprehend what bioenergy is. This is why the

Nimbin Valley Dairy anaerobic digester is so important. While it is clear that actually

building a digester on a farm requires a lot of technical and labor intensive research, getting

the measurements and feedstock inputs correct is vital to ensure that the plant runs properly

and efficiently. Because there seems to be preliminary acceptance for anaerobic digestion,

these pilot plants can be established before a social license is officially recognized. Once the

digester is actually built, it will serve as an important resource and model for the rest of the

bioenergy industry in the area.

A campaign should also target the decision-makers and politicians, since they will be

responsible for providing funding, incentives and regulations. Both interviewees and survey

participants indicated that the government would need to play a large role in the

establishment of the industry just as they’ve done for other industries in the past.

Once these steps have been completed, a social license can be developed. Because all

of these processes will have involved the community from the beginning, this final step to

receive a social license just needs to reaffirm community acceptance. This process requires

transparency, active community engagement, and cooperation. If any parts of the proposal are

rejected, the decision must be respected or there will be backlash from the community. If a

social license is developed, the bioenergy industry can proceed. However, it is important that

the social license is reevaluated and renewed as new information emerges and new opinions

are formed.

A bioenergy industry has the potential to be very successful in the Northern Rivers

Region if a social license is developed correctly and the community is heard and involved. If

any of these processes are abused or neglected, the industry will encounter barriers to

operation, as well as potentially hurt other industries and raise further environmental

concerns. However, if executed properly, it has the potential to bring many benefits to the

region, including landfill diversion, greenhouse gas emission reductions, decreased reliance

on fossil fuels, local job opportunities, and increased local energy security. I believe that the

process outlined above is a necessary precondition to successfully developing a bioenergy

industry in the Northern Rivers Region.

38

5. References:

Ballina Shire Council. (n.d.) Proposed Biochar Facility. Retrieved April 7, 2015, from www.ballina.nsw.gov.au

Bice. S. (2014). What gives you a social licence? An exploration of the social licence to operate in the Australian mining industry. Resources, 3(1), 62-80. doi:10.3390/resources3010062 

Bragg, E. (2015). The Amoeba Model. Lecture presented as part of Social Change Workshop, 24-25 March 2015. SIT Study Abroad, Byron Bay, NSW.

Clean Energy Council. (2008a). Australian Bioenergy Roadmap: Setting the direction for biomass in stationary energy to 2020 and beyond. Retrieved March 27, 2015, from http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resourcecentre/reports/previous-reports.html

Cruickshank, P. (2015). Community Engagement, Office of Environment and Heritage NSW. Personal Communication via face-to-face interview, 7th April 2015.

Diesendorf, M. (2007). Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy. Sydney, NSW: University of New South Wales Press.

Dillard, J., Dujon, V., & King, M. (Eds.).  (2010). Understanding the social dimension of sustainability. In R. Heinberg & D. Lerch (Eds.) The post carbon reader: managing the 21st century’s sustainability crisis. (pp. 21-22). Boonville: Watershed Media Press. (Reprinted from Understanding the social dimension of sustainability, by J. Dillard, V. Dujon, & M. King, 2009, Routledge.)

Eswarlal, V., Vasudevan, G., Dey, P., & Vasudevan, P. (2014). Role of community acceptance in sustainable bioenergy projects in India. Energy Policy, 73, 333-343. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.019

Hall, N. (2014). Can the "social licence to operate" concept enhance engagement and increase acceptance of renewable energy? A case study of wind farms in Australia. Social Epistemology, 28(3-4), 219-238. doi:10.1080/02691728.2014.922636

Hall, N., Lacey, J., Carr-Cornish, S., & Dowd, A. (2015). Social licence to operate: Understanding how a concept has been translated into practice in energy industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 301-310. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.020

Heinberg, R. (2010). What is sustainability? In R. Heinberg & D. Lerch (eds.), The Post Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st century’s sustainability crises. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ison, N., Mcgee, C., Tansley, S., Murta, J., Milne, G. and Harris, S. Future Energy Skills for the North Coast. (2012). Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney and J&S Learningwork prepared for Regional Development Australia – Northern Rivers on behalf of Sustain Northern Rivers.

39

Ison, N., Wynne, L., Rutovitz, J., Jenkins, C., Cruickshank, P. and Luckie, K. (2013) NSW North Coast Bioenergy Scoping Study, Report by the Institute for Sustainable Futures to RDA- Northern Rivers on behalf of Sustain Northern Rivers.

Luke, H., Lloyd, D., Boyd, W., & den Exter, K. (2013). Unconventional Gas Development: Why a Regional Community Said No- A Report of Findings from the 2012 Lismore City Council Election Poll and Exit Poll Survey (New South Wales). Geographical Research, 52(3), 263-279. doi: 10.1111/1745-5871.12071

Meyer, N. (2014). Northern Rivers Community Bio-hub (Growing Community Energy Grant Application). Available from Sustain Northern Rivers, Lismore, NSW.

Meyer, N. (2015). Manager, Nimbin Neighbourhood and Information Centre. Personal communication via face-to-face interview, 15 April 2015.

North Coast Energy Forum. (2014). Social License for Bioenergy. Retrieved March 29, 2015, from http://ncef.net.au/2014-ncef-outcomes/social-licence/

NSW Government Department of Trade and Investment. (2014). Progressing the NSW Renewable Energy Action Plan: Annual Report. Sydney: NSW Trade and Investment Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/537197/NSW-Renewable-Energy-Action-Plan-Annual-Report-2014.pdf

NSW Premier and Cabinet. (2006). The Great Opportunity: 25% Renewable Energy for NSW. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from http://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/data/assets/file/0007/14101/TotalEnvironmentCentreNatureConservationCouncilGreenpeaceAttachment2.pdf

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. (2014). Cogeneration Feasibility Guide. Retrieved March 29, 2015, from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/business/140685-cogeneration-feasibility-guide.pdf

Origin Energy. (2015). Energy in Australia. Retrieved April 19, 2015, from http://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/about-energy/energy-in-australia.html

Paragreen, N., & Woodley, A. (2013). Social licence to operate and the coal seam gas industry: What can be learnt from already established mining operations?. Rural Society, 23(1), 46-59. doi:10.5172/rsj.2013.23.1.46

Regional Development Australia- Northern Rivers. (2011). Northern Rivers Food Industry Profile: Final Report. Retrieved March 27, 2015, from http://rdanorthernrivers.org.au/resources/document-library/

Rollings, M. (2014). Collating Information from the North Coast Energy Forum: A Practicum with the Office of Environment and Heritage (Independent Study Project Report). Available from SIT Study Abroad, Byron Bay, NSW.

40

Sustainability Victoria. (n.d.). Bioenergy resource in Victoria. Retrieved April 29, 2015, from http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/publications-and-research/knowledge-archive/bioenergy

Taylor, P., & Quirk, R. (2010). Producing Biochar on Sugar Cane Farms: Industry Benefits, Local and Global Implications In P. Taylor (Ed.), The Biochar Revolution: Transforming Agriculture and Environment. (pp. 295-312). Mt. Evelyn, Victoria: Global Publishing Group.

Waste Management Association of Australia. (2005). Sustainability Guide for Energy from Waste Projects and Proposals. Retrieved April 16, 2015, from http://www.ecowaste.com.au/issues.html

Wilson, P. (2015). Co-owner, Nimbin Valley Dairy. Personal communication via face-to-face interview, 17 April 2015.

5.1 Social License Interviews:

Connors, C. (2015). Chief Executive Officer, NSW Sugar. Personal communication via phone interview, 23rd April 2015.

Coyne, D. (2015). Coordinator, Bio-Charfest. Personal communication via phone interview, 1st May 2015.

Den Exter, K. (2015). Sustainability Partnerships and Community Engagement, Southern Cross University. Personal communication via phone interview, 27th April 2015.

Gleeson, H. (2015). Director, Urban Ecological Systems. Personal communication via face-to-face interview, 24th April 2015.

Green, T. (2015). General Manager, Tweed Shire Council. Personal communication via phone interview, 27th April 2015.

Immig, J. (2015). Coordinator, National Toxics Network. Personal communication via face-to-face interview, 24th April 2015.

Kaye, J. (2015). Member, NSW Legislative Council. Personal communication via phone interview, 30th April 2015.

Murphy, G. (2015). Executive Director, Infrastructure Services, Lismore City Council. Personal communication via phone interview, 1st May 2015.

Nichols, D. (2015). Researcher, Forest Research Centre, Southern Cross University. Personal communication via face-to-face interview, 21st April 2015.

O’Reilly, T. (2015). Sustainability Coordinator, Stone and Wood Beer. Personal communication via face-to-face interview, 20th April 2015.

Palmer, C. (2015). Condong Mill, NSW Sugar. Personal communication via phone interview and email, 27th April 2015.

41

Palmer, G. (2015). Researcher, Forest Research Centre, Southern Cross University. Personal communication via face-to-face interview, 21st April 2015.

Pugh, D. (2015). Co-Founder, North East Forest Alliance. Personal communication via face-to- face interview, 23rd April 2015.

Qualmann, M. (2015). Electrical and Electronic Engineer, Powersmart Energy Efficiency. Personal communication via face-to-face interview, 21st April 2015.

Reid, G. (2015). Member, Tweed Climate Action Now. Personal communication via phone interview, 20th April 2015.

Restall, B. (2015). Chief Executive, Cape Byron Power. Personal communication via phone interview, 14th April 2015.

Robson, P. (2015). Hardwood Engineering Manager, Boral Timber. Personal communication via phone interview, 22nd April 2015.

Trustum, K. (2015). Commercial Services Coordinator- Waste, Airport and Cemeteries, Lismore City Council. Personal communication via phone interview, 28th April 2015.

Walker, J. (2015). General Manager, Richmond Valley Council. Personal communication via phone interview, 22nd April 2015.

Vancov, T. (2015). Researcher in 2nd Generation Biofuels, NSW Department of Primary Industries. Personal communication via phone interview, 13th April 2015.

42

Appendix A: Anonymous Online Survey

Bioenergy in the Northern Rivers Region

You are being invited to participate in a research study titled Assessing Community Support and Feasibility for Bioenergy in the Northern Rivers Region. The purpose of this research study is to assess community acceptance of bioenergy and the tools needed to develop a social licence to operate for bioenergy.  This project is being conducted with Office of Environment and Heritage NSW and Sustain Northern Rivers. If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an on-line survey.  This survey will ask about your knowledge of bioenergy, your perceived benefits and barriers, and the tools you need to make an informed decision on the potential for bioenergy use in the Northern Rivers Region and it will take you approximately 5-10 minutes to complete.   Risks associated with this research study are minimal to none; however, as with any on-line related activity the risk of a breach of confidentiality is always possible.  To the best of our ability your answers in this study will remain confidential. In order to minimize the risks, data collected will be stored on an encrypted file on our personal computer, which is locked. Identifiable information (i.e. name, address) will not be collected, your email address will not be linked to your survey results, and all participants will remain anonymous.   Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you can withdraw at any time.  You are free to skip any question that you choose.   By clicking “I agree” below you are indicating that you are at least 18 years old, have read and understood this consent form and agree to participate in this research study.  Please print a copy of this page for your records.  

I agree I do not agreeIf I do not agree Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

How important is the topic of renewable energy being incorporated into the political conversation to you?

Not Very Important Somewhat Important Important Extremely Important

Please rank the following renewable energy sources that you would want to see installed on a commercial scale for the Northern Rivers Region (with 1= top choice):

______ Solar Energy: Radiant light and heat from the sun harnessed using a range of ever-evolving technologies such as solar heating, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal energy, solar architecture and artificial photosynthesis______ Bioenergy: Energy produced from biomass- material produced by photosynthesis or is an organic by-product from a waste stream (i.e. agricultural waste or animal waste)______ Wind Energy: Generating electricity from the naturally occurring power of the wind; wind turbines capture wind energy within the area swept by their blades.

How would you rate your knowledge of bioenergy? Bioenergy is defined as energy produced from biomass- material produced by photosynthesis or is an organic by-product from a waste stream (Diesendorf, 2007, p. 128).

43

Never heard of it Little Knowledge Some Knowledge Extensive Knowledge

Which of following forms of bioenergy have you heard of? Check all that apply.

Combustion: the direct burning of biomass material to produce heat and/or electricity Pyrolysis: heating biomass in a de-oxygenated environment to produce methane and

biochar Anaerobic Digestion: the decomposition of organic material in an environment without

oxygen to produce methane and a liquid fertilizer known as digestate Torrefaction: a thermal process that involves heating the biomass to temperatures

between 250 and 300 degrees Celsius in an inert atmosphere. When biomass is heated at such temperatures, the moisture evaporates and various low-calorific components contained in the biomass are driven out.

Of the methods of conversion above, which method would you prefer to see on a commercial scale in the Northern Rivers Region?

Combustion Pyrolysis Anaerobic Digestion Torrefaction

Which of the following feedstocks would you support to be used for bioenergy in the Northern Rivers Region? Check all that apply.

Agricultural Residues: Field residues from harvesting or growing (i.e. bagasse, rice hulls, nut shells, etc.)

Energy Crops: Crops grown specifically for energy extraction (i.e. Woody short-rotation coppice harvested every 2-4 years, then regrown from the stump, energy plantations, annual crops including sugar cane, cassava, sunflowers, soybeans, etc.) 

Forestry residues and by-products from plantations: Harvest residues and thinnings from forest management, sawmill or wood processing wastes (i.e. sawdust and off-cuts)

Forestry residues and by-products from native timber forests: Harvest residues and thinnings from forest management, sawmill or wood processing wastes (i.e. sawdust and off-cuts)

Wet Wastes: Liquid wastes containing organic matter in a dilute form (i.e. intensive livestock production, meat processing, food and drink production, pulp and paper production, municipal sewage treatment)

Municipal Waste: Organic matter from household rubbish (i.e. food scraps, garden waste) Commercial Waste: Organic material from commercial and industrial sites (i.e. solid

wastes, liquid wastes, oily wastes) Other ____________________

44

On what scale is bioenergy most appropriate?

On-Site: a company with a large bioenergy resource installs a bioenergy conversion plant on-site to turn this resource into useful energy for sale or use

Sector based: organisations from the same industry sector (i.e. saw mills or chicken farms) are in close proximity to one another and jointly develop a bioenergy facility, and send all of their bioenergy resources to that facility

Regional: a bioenergy facility is developed in a region, fueled by a range of compatible but different bioenergy feedstocks (i.e. plantation thinnings, camphor laurel, and macadamia shells) that are found in that region

What is the maximum distance you think biomass should be transported to reach the processing plant?

Less than 25 km 25-49 km 50-75 km More than 75 km

What do you think are the benefits of bioenergy (Choices were selected based on previous studies)? Please check all that apply.

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions Reduce reliance on fossil fuels Improve salinity problems in the soil Job opportunities Increase the reliability and diversity of electricity Local energy source Landfill diversion Decreased odor Local, organic fertilizer Improve biodiversity Energy source that can be stored and timed to meet demand Local energy security Reduced electricity cost Other ____________________

45

What are some concerns you have regarding bioenergy (Choices were selected based on previous studies)? Please check all that apply.

Increased emissions from combustion Increased odor Trucking feedstocks long distances to the processing plant Fear of big business control of the industry Plants are visually unappealing NIMBY (Not in my Backyard) Cost of investment Distrust of regulatory authorities Some feedstocks are seasonal Feedstocks can be costly to collect Increased threats to native forests and biodiversity Complex regulation Extraction and conversion by-products (i.e. digestate produced from anaerobic digestion) Other ____________________

If you want to further explain any of the above concerns that you have, please do so here:

What tools or resources do you think the community needs to increase understanding and acceptance of bioenergy?

Do you have any other comments you wish to make?

In what town, city, or shire do you currently reside?

What is your gender?

Male Female Other Prefer not to answer

What is your age?

18-24 25-39 40-64 65+

What is the highest level of education you have received? If you are currently enrolled in school, please select the highest degree received.

Some high school High School certificate or the equivalent Vocational/technical certificate Some university Undergraduate (B.A) Degree Post-Graduate Degree or higher

46

Appendix B: Script for Open-Ended Interview Questions

1. What do you know about renewable energy? o Do you think it’s important to develop more sources of renewable energy? If so, why?o What types of renewable energy do you know about?o Which are most promising for the North Coast region of NSW?

2. Where did you first hear about bioenergy? o From which types of sources have most of your knowledge on bioenergy come?o Were media stories important?

3. What do you know about the different feedstocks (agricultural waste, green waste, organic waste, forest/timber waste, agricultural crops)?o What are the pros/cons of each feedstock option?o Which feedstock options are you in favor of? Are there some that should be used over

others?

4. What do you know about the different methods of bioenergy (anaerobic digestion, combustion, pyrolysis)o What are the benefits of combustion?o What are the drawbacks?o What are the benefits of anaerobic digestion?o What are the drawbacks of anaerobic digestion?o What are the benefits of pyrolysis?o What are the drawbacks of pyrolysis?

5. What do you see as the perceived benefits of bioenergy for this region? (the list below will not be included in the interviewee version, but will be used for me to probe if necessary)o Environmental- greenhouse gas emissions, odor, reliance on fossil fuels, landfill

diversion, fertilizer from the digestateo Social- local energy, community engagement, increased social cohesiono Economic- jobs, reduced energy prices, sustainable energy

6. Since the method used depends on the feedstocks available, what feedstocks do you think are most available for use in the Northern Rivers Region?

7. Which method of extraction is most suitable for the region?

8. What are some of the concerns you have about establishing bioenergy in the region?o Environmental- emissions from combustion, odor, trucking, NIMBY, visually

unappealingo Social- fear of big businesso Economic- expensive investment, distrust of regulatory authorities

47

9. How aware do you think the community is on the issue of bioenergy in the region?

10. Do you think there is wide community acceptance for bioenergy in the region?o Is one method preferred?o On what scale? (On site, sector based, regional)

11. What is your understanding of the idea of a Social Licence to Operate?

12. What tools are needed to overcome these barriers?o Education?o Funding?o Increased community engagement?

13. What modes of communication would be most effective?

14. Is there a specific audience or part of the population we should target?

15. Expert specific questions:o For farmers: Have you ever considered using bioenergy on your property?

Are you aware of federal government support for storing carbon on farms?o For the industry: How long have you been producing bioenergy? How much do you

produce? o For Lock the Gate/CSG related people: Do you think there would be support within

Lock the Gate to help develop a social licence for bioenergy? If so how could Lock the gate or the movement generally contribute to this?

16. How can the Lock the Gate movement serve as a model to developing a social licence for bioenergy?o Is it detrimental? How?

17. What are the next steps to develop a social licence for bioenergy?

18. Any other comments?

Thank you for talking with me today. May I follow-up with you later if needed? Please contact me if you have any further questions.

48

Appendix C: Interview Schedule

Monday, April 13, 2015: Tony Vancov

Tuesday, April 14, 2015: Brian Restall

Monday, April 20, 2015: Greg Reid Anonymous Interviewee Thomas O’Reilly

Tuesday, April 21, 2015: Graeme Palmer Doland Nichols Michael Qualmann

Wednesday, April 22, 2015: Peter Robson John Walker

Thursday, April 23, 2015: Anonymous Interviewee Chris Connors Dailan Pugh

Friday, April 24, 2015: Hogan Gleeson Jo Immig

Monday, April 27, 2015: Cam Palmer Troy Green Kristin Den Exter

Tuesday, April 28, 2015: Anonymous Interviewee Kevin Trustum

Thursday, April 30, 2015: John Kaye Anonymous Interviewee

Friday, May 1, 2015: Don Coyne Gary Murphy

49

Appendix D: Interview Raw Data

Preferred Conversion Method Number of Interviewees

Combustion 1

Anaerobic Digestion 4

Pyrolysis 3

No Comment 5

No Clear Preference 8

Specifically Against Combustion 6

Key Words Referenced in the Interview Number of Interviewees

Base Load 5

Complex 5

Life Cycle Analysis 6

Transportation Costs 13

Transparency 3

Misinformation 3

Economic Viability 12

Capital Investment 9

Awareness Level Number of Interviewees

Public Aware 5

Public Unaware 19

Feedstock Options Number of Interviewees

Agricultural Waste 15

Municipal Green Waste 7

Timber/Forest Waste 10

Energy Crops 3

50

For Camphor Laurel 5

Against Camphor Laurel 4

Specifically Against Timber Waste 5

51