Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The pathway toward bioenergy growth: does information and communication technology development make a difference in EU economies?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Information and communication technology has been ascribed a crucial role in raising resource and energy efficiency and thereby contributing to environmental abatement. This study investigates the effect of information and communication technology on bioenergy industry sustainability in twenty-seven European Union members from 1990 through 2019. Using the panel fully modified ordinary least squares, the outcomes demonstrate that bioenergy industry growth inclines with an increase in information and communication technology input. While the bioenergy industry is found to be decreasing carbon dioxide releases. Economic growth, institutional quality, and human capital are seen to improve the bioenergy industry growth. On the other hand, bioenergy industry development is found to be mitigating carbon dioxide and pollution. The result indicates that bioenergy industry sustainability in EU region members can be well inclined by improving the information and communication technology development in production procedures. This will later help in tackling environmental pollution and climate change. The assessed outcome is viewed to be valid as they were confirmed by panel dynamic ordinary least squares and pooled ordinary least squares. The investigation proposes for European state participants to increase the part of information and communication technology input in their bioenergy industry to increase the growth and sustainability levels. Policymakers in the EU region countries should also invest more in information and communication technology of the bioenergy industry to improve its production and availability. The government of the EU region can similarly focus on technical efficacy, productivity, and sustainability of information and communication technology to achieve bioenergy growth, security, and sustainable development.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

source: Alsaleh et al. [3]

Fig. 2

source: Alsaleh et al. [3]

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data is available upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Council E (2014) 2030 Climate and energy policy framework. Belgium, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  2. European Commission. (2012). Smart ICT for energy efficiency. Shaping Europe’s Digital Future Projects. Cyprus

  3. Alsaleh M, Abdul-Rahim AS, Mohd-Shahwahid HO (2017) Determinants of technical efficiency in the bioenergy industry in the EU28 region. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 78(2017):1331–1349

    Google Scholar 

  4. Huber GW (2007) Breaking the chemical and engineering barriers to lignocellulosic biofuels: a research roadmap for making lignocellulosic biofuels a practical reality. American Chemical Society Workshop, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chung JN (2013) Grand challenges in bioenergy and biofuel research: engineering and technology development, environmental impact, and sustainability. Front Energ Res 2013:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  6. Peck P, Bennett SJ, Bissett-Amess R, Lenhart J, Mozaffarian H (2009) Examining understanding, acceptance, and support for the biorefinery concept among EU policy-makers. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 3(2009):361–383

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kline KL, Dale VH, Lee R, Leiby P (2011) In defense of biofuels, done right. Iss Sci Technol 25(2009):75–84

    Google Scholar 

  8. Efroymson RA, Dale VH, Bielicki J, McBride A, Smith R, Parish E, Schweizer P, Kline KL, Shaw D (2013) Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: what about context? Environ Manage 51(2013):291–306

    Google Scholar 

  9. Alsaleh M, Zubair A, Abdul-Rahim AS (2020) The impact of global competitiveness on the growth of bioenergy industry in EU-28 region. Sustain Dev 28(5):1304–1316

    Google Scholar 

  10. Alsaleh M, Abdulwakil MM, Abdul-Rahim AS (2021) The importance of worldwide governance indicators for transitions toward sustainable bioenergy industry. J Environ Manage. 294(15):112960

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stock JH, Watson MW (1993) A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica, J Econ Soc 61(1993):783–820

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Phillips PC, Hansen BE (1990) Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. Rev Econ Stud 57(1999):99–125

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Szarka N, Scholwin F, Trommler M, Fabian JH, Eichhorn M, Ortwein A, Thrän D (2013) A novel role for bioenergy: a flexible, demand-oriented power supply. Energy 61(2013):18–26

    Google Scholar 

  14. Alsaleh M, Abdul-Rahim AS (2018) Bioenergy industry and the growth of the energy sector in the EU-28 region: evidence from panel cointegration analysis. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 10(2018):053103

    Google Scholar 

  15. Abdulwakil M, Alsaleh M, Abdul-Rahim AS (2019) Bioenergy efficiency change and its determinants in EU-28 region: evidence using least square dummy variable corrected estimation. Biomass & Bioenergy 137(2020):105569

    Google Scholar 

  16. Yiyun L, Tao H, Xiaofeng L, Jingjing H, Daoping P, Claudia M, Martin K (2020) Experiments and modeling for flexible biogas production by co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge. Energies 13(2020):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rieke C, Stollenwerk D, Dahmen M, Pieper M (2018) Modeling and optimization of a biogas plant for a demand-driven energy supply. Energy 145(2018):657–664

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lauer M, Thran D (2017) Biogas plants and surplus generation: cost driver or reducer in the future German electricity system? Energy Policy 109(2017):324–336

    Google Scholar 

  19. Anja S, Ralf-Uwe S, Reimund S, Gerd L, Bettina M, Peter Z (2014) Scenarios of bioenergy provision: technological developments in a landscape context and their social effects. Environ Dev Sustain 16(2014):575–594

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ervin S, Susanne F, Angela M, Kwankao K, Bernhard M, Michael L et al (2019) Utilization of food and agricultural residues for a flexible biogas production: process stability and effects on needed biogas storage capacities. Energies 12(2019):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ervin S, Daniel K, Bernhard S, Bettina M, Angela M, Anton F (2019) Economic and global warming potential assessment of flexible power generation with biogas plants. Sustainability 11(2019):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lauven L, Geldermann J, Desideri U (2019) Estimating the revenue potential of flexible biogas plants in the power sector. Energy Policy 128(2019):402–410

    Google Scholar 

  23. Alsaleh M, Abdul-Rahim AS, Mohd-Shahwahid HO, Chin L, Kamarudin F (2016) An empirical analysis for technical efficiency of bioenergy industry in EU28 region based on data envelopment analysis method. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy 6(2016):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  24. Alsaleh M, Abdul-Rahim AS (2019) Bioenergy intensity and its determinants in European continental countries: evidence using GMM estimation. Resources 8(2019):44

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dotzauer M, Pfeiffer D, Lauer M, Pohl M et al (2019) How to measure flexibility – performance indicators for demand driven power generation from biogas plants. Renewable Energy 134(2019):135–146

    Google Scholar 

  26. Feroldi D, Degliuomini LN, Basualdo M (2013) Energy management of a hybrid system based on wind–solar power sources and bioethanol. Chem Eng Res Des 91(2013):1440–1455

    Google Scholar 

  27. Campo P, Benitez T, Lee U, Chung JN (2015) Modeling of a biomass high temperature steam gasifier integrated with assisted solar energy and a micro gas turbine. Energy Convers Manage 93(2015):72–83

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tanaka Y, Mesfun S, Umeki K, Toffolo A, Tamaura Y, Yoshikawa K (2015) Thermodynamic performance of a hybrid power generation system using biomass gasification and concentrated solar thermal processes. Appl Energy 160(2015):664–672

    Google Scholar 

  29. Martin M, Davis W (2016) Integration of wind, solar and biomass over a year for the constant production of CH4 from CO2 and water. Comput Chem Eng 84(2016):313–325

    Google Scholar 

  30. Edgar HG, Zhang X (2009) Concentrating-solar biomass gasification process for a 3rd generation biofuel. Environ Sci Technol 43(2009):4207–4212

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bilgili F (2012) The impact of biomass consumption on CO2 emissions: cointegration analyses with regime shifts. Renewable Sustainable Energy Review 16(2012):5349–5354

    Google Scholar 

  32. Brack D (2017) The impacts of the demand for woody biomass for power and heat on climate and forests. Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London

  33. Balezentis T, Streimikiene D, Zhang T, Liobikiene G (2019) The role of bioenergy in greenhouse gas emission reduction in EU countries: an Environmental Kuznets Curve modelling. Resour Conserv Recycl 142(2019):225–231

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bilgili F, Oztürk I, Koçak E, Bulut Ü, Pamuk Y, Mugaloglu E, Baglıtas HH (2016) The influence of biomass energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a wavelet coherence approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(2016):19043–19061

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bilgili F, Koçak E, Bulut Ü, Kus kaya S (2017) Can biomass energy be an efficient policy tool for sustainable development? Renewable Sustainable Energy Review 71(2017):830–845

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dogan E, Inglesi-Lotz R (2017) Analyzing the effects of real income and biomass energy consumption on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions: empirical evidence from the panel of biomass-consuming countries. Energy 138(2017):721–727

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mouratiadou I, Stella T, Gaiser T et al (2020) Sustainable intensification of crop residue exploitation for bioenergy: opportunities and challenges. GCB Bioenergy 12(2020):71–89

    Google Scholar 

  38. Bassu S, Brisson N, Durand J-L, Boote K, Lizaso J, Jones JW, Waha K et al (2014) How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors? Glob Change Biol 20(2014):2301–2320

    Google Scholar 

  39. Batidzirai B, Valk M, Wicke B, Junginger M, Daioglou V, Euler W, Faaij APC (2016) Current and future technical, economic and environmental feasibility of maize and wheat residues supply for biomass energy application: illustrated for South Africa. Biomass Bioenerg 92(2016):106–129

    Google Scholar 

  40. Brandao M, Milài Canals L, Clift R (2011) Soil organic carbon changes in the cultivation of energy crops: Implications for GHG balances and soil quality for use in LCA. Modelling Environmental, Economic and Social Aspects in the Assessment of Biofuels 35(2011):2323–2336

    Google Scholar 

  41. Carvalho JLN, Hudiburg TW, Franco HCJ, DeLucia EH (2017) Contribution of above- and belowground bioenergy crop residues to soil carbon. GCB Bioenergy 9(2017):1333–1343

    Google Scholar 

  42. Calvin K, Wise M, Kyle P, Patel P, Clarke L, Edmonds J (2014) Trade-offs of different land and bioenergy policies on the path to achieving climate targets. Clim Change 123(2015):691–704

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wise MA, McJeon HC, Calvin KV, Clarke LE, Kyle P (2014) Assessing the interactions among us climate policy, biomass energy, and agricultural trade. Energy Journal 35(2014):165–180

    Google Scholar 

  44. Muratori M, Calvin K, Wise M, Kyle P, Edmonds J (2016) Global economic consequences of deploying bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Environmental Research Letters 11(2016):095004

    Google Scholar 

  45. Azar C, Lindgren K, Obersteiner M, Riahi K, Van Vuuren DP, den Elzen KMG, Möllersten K, Larson ED (2010) The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Climate Change 100(2010):195–202

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kemper J (2015) Biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage: a review. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 40(2015):401–430

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ahmed Z, Nathaniel S, Shahbaz M (2020) The criticality of information and communication technology and human capital in environmental sustainability: evidence from Latin American and Caribbean countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 125529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125529

  48. Shahbaz M, Tang CF, Shabbir MS (2011) Electricity consumption and economic growth nexus in Portugal using cointegration and causality approaches. Energy Policy 39(2011):29–36

    Google Scholar 

  49. Koçak E, Şarkgüneşi A (2016) The renewable energy and economic growth nexus in black sea and Balkan Countries. Energy Policy 100(2017):51–57

    Google Scholar 

  50. Pedroni P (2000). Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels (No. 2000–03). Department of Economics, Williams College

  51. Pedroni P (2001) Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels. Review of Economic Statistic 83(2001):727–731

    Google Scholar 

  52. Prodan I (2013). The effect of weather on stock returns: a comparison between emerging and developed markets. Anchor Academic Publishing

  53. Pedroni P (1999) Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 61(1999):653–670

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bhattacharya M, Paramati SR, Ozturk I, Bhattacharya S (2015) The effect of renewable energy consumption on economic growth: evidence from top 38 countries. Appl Energy 162(2015):733–741

    Google Scholar 

  55. Alsaleh M, Abdul-Rahim AS, Mohd-Shahwahid HO (2018) Determinants of cost efficiency of bioenergy industry: evidence from EU28 countries. Renewable Energy 127(C):746–762

    Google Scholar 

  56. Danish Ulucak R (2020) Linking biomass energy and CO2 emissions in China using dynamic autoregressive- distributed lag simulations. Journal of Cleaner Production 250(2020):119533

    Google Scholar 

  57. Danish W, Z (2019) Does biomass energy consumption help to control environmental pollution? Evidence from BRICS countries. Science of Total Environment 670(2019):1075–1083

    Google Scholar 

  58. Destek MA, Okumus I (2019) Biomass energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emission in G-20 countries. Anemon Mus ̧Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 7(2019):347–353

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kwiatkowski D, Phillips PCB, Schmidt P, Shin Y (1992) Testing the null of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: how sure are we the economic time series have a unit root. Journal of Econometrics 54(1992):159–178

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. Lauer M, Leprich U, Thran D (2020) Economic assessment of flexible power generation from biogas plants in Germany’s future electricity system. Renewable Energy 146(2020):1471–1485

    Google Scholar 

  61. Luckow P, Wise MA, Dooley JJ, Kim SH (2010) Large-scale utilization of biomass energy and carbon dioxide capture and storage in the transport and electricity sectors under stringent CO2 concentration limit scenarios. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 4(2010):865–877

    Google Scholar 

  62. Markus L, Daniela T (2018) Flexible biogas in future energy systems—sleeping beauty for a cheaper power generation. Energies 11(2018):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  63. Pedroni P (2004) Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econ Theor 20(2004):597–625

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  64. Pesaran H, Shin Y, Smith R (2001) Bound testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Economet 16(2001):289–326

    Google Scholar 

  65. Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. J Appl Economet 22(2007):265–312

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  66. Rose SK, Kriegler E, Bibas R, Calvin K, Popp A, Van Vuuren DP, Weyant J (2014) Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management. Clim Change 123(2014):477–493

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ramos-Suárez JL, Ritter A, Mata GJ, Camacho PA (2019) Biogas from animal manure: a sustainable energy opportunity in the Canary Islands. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 104(2019):137–150

    Google Scholar 

  68. Zubair AO, Alsaleh M and Abdul-Rahim AS (2021) Evaluating the profit efficiency of bioenergy industry and its determinants in EU28 region. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Economics (formerly known as Faculty of Economics and Management), Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

    Mohd Alsaleh & A. S. Abdul-Rahim

Authors
  1. Mohd Alsaleh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. S. Abdul-Rahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The two authors contributed to writing, estimation, analysis, and revision of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohd Alsaleh.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Descriptive statistics
Full size table
Table 6 Correlation matrix
Full size table
Table 7 Panel unit root test results for the EU region in 1990–2019
Full size table
Table 8 Panel co-integration test results for the EU region during 1990–2019
Full size table
Table 9 List of the EU region member countries
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alsaleh, M., Abdul-Rahim, A.S. The pathway toward bioenergy growth: does information and communication technology development make a difference in EU economies?. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 13, 8969–8983 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01933-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01933-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation