Technological, Economic, Social and Environmental Barriers to Adoption of Small-Scale Biogas Plants: Case of Indonesia

Abstract

By 2025, biogas is estimated to become a larger part of Indonesia’s energy mix. Biogas is a renewable energy source that also has economic and environmental advantages. Domestic biogas generation has been embraced in Indonesia as a response to the country’s energy security concerns in rural areas. Since the 1970s, 48,038 biogas plants have been built in the region. To fully develop this technology, Indonesia must discontinue relying on fossil fuels and substitute current fossil-fuel-based energy. This article provides an overview of renewable technology in Indonesia, as well as addressing domestic energy demands and referring to existing literature on the socio-technical and socio-economic barriers to biogas adoption in Indonesia. Based on a rigorous review of 71 publications published in Web of Science (WoS) between 2010 and 2021, this study explores existing barriers for biogas adoption by summarizing the current literature from technical, economic, social and environmental perspectives. Biogas adoption is a complex process with many interwoven components. Therefore, this research addresses a gap in the strategic planning and implementation process, providing policymakers with pathways to eliminate bottlenecks in renewable energy planning. Recommendations for future research are also proposed.

Livestock waste as alternative energy for rural households: A review

“…Biogas technology has not yet developed in Indonesia because the agricultural and livestock waste produced cannot yet be utilized because the human resources of rural farmers are not yet able to process livestock waste into biogas due to technical, economic, and social factors [38]. Research [24] found that farmer education, distance from house to barn, disease, and number of livestock, as well as the price of LPG subsidized by the government are considered factors inhibiting the development of biogas technology.…”

“…A number of studies reveal that the perspectives of Indonesian society are diverse due to culture and traditions. As a result, biogas adoption varies greatly from one region to another, lacking government support to promote biogas technology [38]. Another study found that farmer literacy and education were still low in using biogas [42].…”

“…Government support is very important in increasing the diffusion of biogas technology in developing countries like Indonesia; this dependence can create dependence, a sense of ownership and low maintenance of the technology. One of the approaches developed by the Home Biogas Program (BIRU) is a scheme where farmers can access credit at various interest rates to pay for small-scale biogas through collaboration with the private sector [38]. Therefore, it is a more effective biogas development strategy.…”

Studi literatur: pemanfaatan teknologi biogas dari limbah organik di Indonesia

“…Selain itu, studi lebih lanjut harus dilakukan untuk lebih mengoptimalkan kinerja digester anaerob yang sesuai dengan karakteristik limbah yang dihasilkan secara lokal yang dimanfaatkan untuk produksi bio-metana (Amin et al 2022). Kebijakan yang diterapkan oleh negara-negara industri seperti Jerman dan Swedia harus dipelajari untuk mempercepat penyebaran teknologi biogas di daerah maupun perkotaan (Situmeang et al 2022). Dukungan dari pemerintah, organisasi koperasi dan industri semuanya harus didorong.…”

Development barriers of agricultural biogas plants in Poland

“…Earlier studies present barriers to the functioning of agricultural biogas plants without any particular use of the typology (Pawlak, 2013;Mateescu et al, 2008). Other studies indicate the following barriers: political, economic, social, and technological (Situmeang et al, 2022;Igliński et al, 2020) supplemented with market barriers (Monjurul et al, 2022;Nevzorova & Kutcherov, 2019). At the same time, the literature points out the following issues applied to barriers to biogas technologies in rural areas: financial and economic; market; social and cultural; regulatory and institutional; technological and infrastructural, as well as information (Mittal et al, 2018).…”