Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An energy efficient Swedish pulp and paper industry – exploring barriers to and driving forces for cost-effective energy efficiency investments

  • Published:
Energy Efficiency Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the need for increased industrial energy efficiency, studies indicate that cost-effective energy efficiency measures are not always implemented, which is explained by the existence of barriers to energy efficiency. This paper investigates whether this holds for the Swedish pulp and paper industry, and if so, investigates the barriers inhibiting and the driving forces stressing cost-effective energy efficiency investments. By so, this case study covers about 2% of the EU-25 industrial end-use of energy. The overall results from a questionnaire show that there is an energy efficiency gap in the sector and that the largest barriers were technical risks such as risk of production disruptions, cost of production disruption/hassle/inconvenience, technology inappropriate at the mill, lack of time and other priorities, lack of access to capital, and slim organization. As regards the driving forces for energy efficiency, the highest ranked driving forces were cost reductions resulting from lower energy use, people with real ambition, long-term energy strategy, the threat of rising energy prices, the electricity certificate system, the PFE. The results show that many of the barriers and driving forces were not solely market-related, e.g., lack of time or other priorities, slim organization, other priorities for capital investments, lack of staff awareness, and long decision chains indicate that firm-specific barriers plays an important role. These barriers may not be overcome by market-related public policy instruments but is rather a consequence of how the energy issue is organized within the firms. The second and the third largest driving forces, people with real ambition and a long-term energy strategy further support this.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. For an overview of the debate regarding energy efficiency and its impact, please see Geller and Attali (2005).

  2. A cost-effective energy conservation measure is defined as an investment which lowers the use of energy and which is considered cost-effective according to the Mill’s investment criteria.

  3. Like Schleich and Gruber (2007), this paper investigates energy-efficient investments in general and does not focus on a single technology.

References

  • Andersson, E., Harvey, S., & Berntsson, T. (2006). Energy efficient upgrading of biofuel integrated with a pulp mill. Energy, 31(10–11), 1384–1394.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S. T., & Newell, R. G. (2004). Information programs for technology adoption: The case of energy-efficiency audits. Resource and Energy Economics, 26(1), 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, C., Karlsson, M., Berntsson, T., & Soderstrom, M. (2001). Co-ordination of pinch technology and the MIND method. Applied Thermal Engineering, 22(2), 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertoldi, P., Starzer, O., & Sattler, M. (2003). Combining long term agreements with emissions trading: An overview of the current EU energy efficiency policies for the industrial sector and a proposal for a new industrial efficiency policy (Paper presented at the 2003 American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) summer study on energy efficiency in industry).

  • Brown, M. A. (2001). Market failures and barriers as a basis for clean energy policies. Energy Policy, 29(14), 1197–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1968). The systems approach. New York: Dell Publishing Co. Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCanio, S. (1993). Barriers within firms to energy efficient investments. Energy Policy, 9(1), 906–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot, H., Verhoef, E., & Nijkamp, P. (2001). Energy saving by firms: Decision-making, barriers and policies. Energy Economics, 23(6), 717–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • del Rio Gonzàlez, P. (2005). Analysing the factors influencing clean technology adoption: A study of the Spanish pulp and paper industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(1), 20–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC (European Commission), (2006). Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on energy end-use efficiency and energy services and repealing Council Directive 93/76/ EEC, Brussels.

  • Eurostat. (2007). Final energy consumption, by sector. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from the Eurostat’s Web site: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid = 1996,39140985&_dad = portal&_schema = PORTAL&screen = detailref&language = en&product = sdi_cc&root = sdi_cc/sdi_cc/sdi_cc_ene/sdi_cc2200.

  • Farla, J. C. M., & Blok, K. (1995). Energy conservation investment behaviour of firms: analysis of investments in energy efficiency in the Netherlands in the 1980s. (Paper presented at the 1995 American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) summer study on energy efficiency in industry).

  • Geller, H., & Attali, S. (2005). The experience with energy efficiency policies and programmes in IEA countries – Learning from the Critics. Retrieved October 8, 2007, from the IEA’s Web site: http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2005/efficiency_policies.pdf.

  • Hietaniemi, J., & Ahtila, P. (2007). Energy conservation agreements within Finnish pulp and paper industry – methods and results. Retrieved October 8, 2007, from the Motiva’s Web site: http://www.motiva.fi/attachment/f16d4d543f99d7a59f5 4560a69063a0e/dcda18330aa306eb83d12fd3b6e09cbd/PP2004-teksti.pdf.

  • Hirst, E., & Brown, M. A. (1990). Closing the efficiency gap: Barriers to the efficient use of energy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 3(4), 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, J. M., & Gustavsson, L. (2007). Biomass use in chemical and mechanical pulping with biomass-based energy supply. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52, 331–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, R., & Andersson, B. (1993). Market barriers to energy efficiency. Energy Economics, 15(4), 262–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007). Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers. Retrieved October 8, 2007 from http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf.

  • Jaffe, A., & Stavins, R. (1994). The energy-efficiency gap. What does it mean. Energy Policy, 22(10), 804–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, B., Modig, G., & Nilsson, L. J. (2007). Policy instruments and industrial responses – Experiences from Sweden. (Paper presented at the 2007 European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ECEEE) summer study “Saving energy – just do it”, Panel 7, 1413–1421).

  • Klugman, S., Karlsson, M., & Moshfegh, B. (2007). A Scandinavian chemical wood pulp mill. Part 1. Energy audit aiming at efficiency measures. Applied Energy, 84(3), 326–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laestadius, S. (1998). Technology level, knowledge formation, and industrial competence in paper manufacturing. In G. Eliason, C. Green, & C. R. McCann (Eds.) Microfoundation of economic growth: A Schumpeterian perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masurel, E. (2007). Why SMEs invest in environmental measures: Sustainability evidence from small and medium-sized printing firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 190–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möllersten, K., Yan, J., & Westermark, M. (2003). Potential and cost-effectiveness of CO2 reductions through energy measures in Swedish pulp and paper mills. Energy, 28(7), 691–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, L., Larson, E., Gilbreath, K., & Gupta, A. (1996). Energy efficiency and the pulp and paper industry. Report number IE962. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostertag, K. (1999). Transaction costs of raising energy efficiency. (Paper presented at the 2007 IEA international Workshop on Technologies to Reduce Greenhouse gas Emissions: Engineering-Economic Analyses of Conserved Energy and Carbon).

  • Ottosson, C., & Peterson, K. (2007). First results from the Swedish LTA programme for energy efficiency in industry. (Paper presented at the 2007 European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ECEEE) summer study “Saving energy – just do it”, Panel 7, 1517–1525).

  • Rohdin, P., & Thollander, P. (2006a). Barriers to and driving forces for energy efficiency in the non-energy intensive manufacturing industry in Sweden. Energy, 31(12), 1836–1844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohdin, P., & Thollander, P. (2006b). Perspectives on energy efficiency, manufacturing simulation, energy audits and public policies (in Swedish: Synen på energieffektivisering, produktionssimulering, energianalyser och styrmedel – en studie av nio svenska gjuterier), Swecast, Jönköping.

  • Rohdin, P., Thollander, P., & Solding, P. (2007). Barriers to and drivers for energy efficiency in the Swedish foundry industry. Energy Policy, 35(1), 672–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCB, (2006). SCB’s statistical database, statistikdatabas, Retrieved October 8, 2007, from the SCB’s Web site: www.scb.se.

  • Schleich, J., & Gruber, E. (2007). Beyond case studies: Barriers to energy efficiency in commerce and the services sector. Energy Economics 30(2), 449–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • SEA (Swedish Energy Agency). (2007a). Energy in Sweden 2006, Facts and figures. Retrieved October 8, 2007, from the Swedish Energy Agency’s Web site: http://www.energimyndigheten.se/web/biblshop.nsf/FilAtkomst/ET2006_ 44.pdf/$FILE/ET2006_44.pdf?OpenElement.

  • SEA (Swedish Energy Agency). (2007b). Energy in Sweden 2006. Retrieved October 8, 2007, from the Swedish Energy Agency’s Web site: http://www.energimyndigheten.se/web/biblshop.nsf/FilAtkomst/ET2006_45.pdf/$FILE/ET 2006_45.pdf?OpenElement.

  • SEA (Swedish Energy Agency). (2007c). Two years with PFE. Retrieved October 8, 2007, from the Swedish Energy Agency’s Web site: http://www.energimyndigheten.se/web/biblshop.nsf/FilAtkomst/ET2007_16.pdf/$FILE/ET 2007_16.pdf?OpenElement.

  • SEA (Swedish Energy Agency). (2007d). The electricity certificate system, 2007. Retrieved October 8, 2007 from the Swedish Energy Agency’s Web site: http://www.energimyndigheten.se/web/biblshop_eng.nsf/FilAtkomst/ET2007 _27.pdf/$FILE/ET2007_27.pdf?OpenElement.

  • SEA (Swedish Energy Agency). (2007e). The European trading scheme’s impact upon industry – a decision making report. (in Swedish: Europeiska utsläppshandelssystemets påverkan på industrin – en underlagsrapport), ER2007:08, SEA, Stockholm.

  • SFI (Swedish Forest Industries), (2005). Energy use in the pulp and paper industry 2000 (In Swedish: Energiförbrukning i massa- och pappersindustrin 2000). Retrieved October 8, 2007, from the Swedish Forest Industries’ Web site: http://www.skogsindustrierna.se/LitiumDokument20/Get Document.asp?archive = 3&directory = 27&document = 257.

  • SFI (Swedish Forest Industries), (2007). Retrieved October 8, 2007, from the Swedish Forest Industries’s Web site: http://www.skogsindustrierna.se/LitiumInformation/site/page.asp?Page = 10&IncPage = 626&IncPage2 = 232&Destination = 227&destination2 = 226&ohKatID = 5&ohID = 13&lang = sv.

  • Sorrell, S., Schleich, J., Scott, S., O’Malley, E., Trace, F., Boede, E., et al. (2000). Reducing Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Public and Private Organizations. Retrieved October 8, 2007 from the SPRU’s (Science and Technology Policy Research) Web site: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru /publications/reports/ barriers/final.html.

  • Stern, P. C., & Aronsson, E. (Eds.) (1984). Energy use: the human dimension. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company

  • STFI (2003). Ecocyclic pulp mill – “KAM” – Final report 1996–2002, KAM Report A100. Stockholm: Swedish Pulp and Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thollander, P., Danestig, M., & Rohdin, P. (2007). Energy policies for increased industrial energy efficiency: Evaluation of a local energy programme for manufacturing SMEs. Energy Policy, 35(11), 5774–5783

    Google Scholar 

  • Velthuijsen, J. W. (1995). Determinants of investments in energy conservation, Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit.

  • Weber, L. (1997). Some reflections on barriers to the efficient use of energy. Energy Policy, 25(10), 833–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wising, U., Berntsson, T., & Stuart, P. (2005). The potential for energy savings when reducing the water consumption in a Kraft Pulp Mill. Applied Thermal Engineering, 25(77), 1057–1066.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Method. Applied Social Research Methods, vol. 5. Sage, London.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work has been carried out under the auspices of the Energy System Programme, which is financed by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research and the Swedish Energy Agency. We kindly thank the respondents at the studied mills for giving freely their time to answer the questionnaire. We would also like to thank Jörgen Persson, Johanna Jönsson, and Thore Berntsson of Chalmers University of Technology and Patrik Rohdin, Mats Söderström, Mats Bladh, and Jonas Anshelm of Linköping University for valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Engineering, Division of Energy Systems, Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden

    Patrik Thollander

  2. Department of Technology and Social Change, Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden

    Mikael Ottosson

Authors
  1. Patrik Thollander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mikael Ottosson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrik Thollander.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thollander, P., Ottosson, M. An energy efficient Swedish pulp and paper industry – exploring barriers to and driving forces for cost-effective energy efficiency investments. Energy Efficiency 1, 21–34 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-007-9001-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-007-9001-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation