Explaining the success of emerging technologies by innovation system functioning: the case of biomass digestion in Germany

Abstract

We examine the view that the success of emerging technologies may be understood using a technological innovation systems analysis, drawing on a system functions approach. This is done in the context of a case study of the successful diffusion of biomass digestion technology in Germany. We show that that all system functions that are claimed to be important within the innovation systems approach are present in the German Biomass Innovation System; and that these system functions positively interact leading to virtuous cycles and a rapid growth of the German Biomass Digestion Innovation System.

Keywords:

• emerging technologies
• innovation system
• system functions
• biomass

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor Ruud Smits and Dr Andre Faaij for their valuable comments on previous versions. Furthermore, we would like to thank Anja Daniel-Umbach, Rütter + Partner, Switzerland, for putting her material at our disposal, and Stefan Berenz, TU München, and Matthias Koch, Universität Karlsruhe, for providing us with valuable information. Finally, we would like to thank the ‘Knowledge Network for System Innovations and Transitions’ (KSI) and the ‘Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research’ (NWO) for their financial support.

Notes

1. This list of system functions has to a large extent been developed in agreement with colleagues from Chalmers University (Sweden) to be applied to empirical work both in the Utrecht and the Chalmers group.

2. The Lexus Nexus™ academic news archive contains all articles that have been published from 1990 onwards. It is quite a homogeneous source that allows for quantification of the data retrieved. Relevant articles can be found by performing a keyword search. The keywords used are: Biomasse, Biomasse vergären/Vergärung and Biogas and other more specific ones to obtain more information on specific topics, i.e. Liberalisierung Energie Markt.

3. In German: Nassvergärung.

4. Biomass digestion is only profitable with 80–100 ‘cattle units’ (in German: Grossvieheinheiten); 100 cows can cover the energy need of 30 average households, where each cattle unit produces about 1.5 m3 of biogas (Janzing 2000; FAZ 2003).

5. In German: Biomasse Verordnung (BiomasseV).

6. In German: Bundesministerium fuer Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reactor Sicherheit (BMU).

7. In German: Einzelhofanlagen (EHA).

8. In German: Biogasgemeinschaftsanlagen (BGA).

9. In German: Länder.

10. In German: Agrarstruktur.

11. In German: Energie-/Stromeinspeisegesetz (BGBI I S.2633) (passed on 7 December 1990, predecessor of the ‘Act on granting priority to renewable energy’ introduced in 2000). Public electricity utilities are obliged to feed electricity produced by renewable energy into the grid and to compensate 80% of the average price per kWh of the electricity produced by biomass (Urbach 1997).

12. In German: Mineralölsteuergesetz (MinöStG) (BGBI S. S. 2150, 2185) passed on 21 December 1992.

13. In German: Fachverband Biogas e.V (www.biogas.org).

14. Feed-in rates are rates that are paid for every kWh of electricity fed into the utility grid (BMU 2000).

15. The Feed-in Act (StrEG) was altered on 24 April 1998 by article 3 Nr 2 (BGBI 1 S. 730/734). Electricity produced by biomass and geothermal are compensated with 8.25–8.75 cents/kWh (16.5–17.5 Pf/kWh) (Metzger 1997; Solarenergie-Förderverein 1999) Nb: Conversion rate: 1 DEM = €0.511292; 1 EUR = 1.95583 DEM (http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi; 2006.02.20 10:09:29 UTC).

16. In German: Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi).

17. In German: Marktanreizprogramm zu Gunsten erneuerbarer Energien. The total budget is €100 million, of which, annually, €36 million (35% of the total sum, until 2002) are reserved for biomass technologies, where biomass digestion plants could obtain €19k–153k depending on their size (Haas 2000).

18. In German: Gesetz für den Vorrang Erneuerbarer Energien, EEG, passed on 17 March 2000 by the Bundestag.

19. With the organisational decree of the Federal Chancellor from 22 January 2001, the Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture, and Forestry (BML) was transformed into the Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food, and Agriculture (BMVEL).

20. In German: Leitfaden Bioenergy.

21. In German: BiomasseVerordnung (BiomasseV), passed on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (BMU), acting in agreement with the Federal Ministries for Consumer Protection, Food, and Agriculture and for Economics and Technology, and respecting the rights of the German Bundestag.

22. In 1996 the fermentation capacity of organic waste from households was above 4 million tonnes per year in Germany. The result is that already more than half of the potential of organic waste is used in (relatively new) fermentation plants (fermentation = conversion of organic waste under aerobic conditions whereby compost is produced but no biogas is collected as an energy source). The result is that the availability of biomass streams are scarce for the digestion of organic waste and that digestion from households will be only considered if the fermentation plants need retrofitting. However, because of the recent increase of the feed-in tariffs, the aspect of profitability has shifted to digestion, and with the introduction of the ‘Ordinance’ an initiative is undertaken to optimise collection of the organic waste streams for digestion (Mueller 2001a). Thus for the time being the remaining streams are guaranteed for digestion. The aim, however, is to switch from fermentation to digestion.

23. In more than 90% of the plants, co-substrates are co-digested with manure, such as energy crops, harvest surplus, verge grass, fat, food residues, and local organic household waste. The added share of co-substrates varies, on average, between 20% and 50%. Co-digestion is allowed as long as the criteria of the ‘Biomass Ordinance’ are respected; this removes a great deal of uncertainty for the plant operators and provides increased biogas yields (E&M 2002; Berenz 2003).

24. In German: Naturbelassen, untreated biomass, i.e. agricultural surplus, energy crops, verge grass, manure. A higher energy yield is obtained when frying fat or other products from the food industry are co-digested.

25. In German: Bundestagsfraktion Buendnis 90/Die Grünen.

26. In German: ‘Rationelle Energieverwendung und Nutzung unerschöpflicher Energiequellen’ (REN-Programm). The aim is to accelerate the market introduction rate of emerging technologies, including biomass and biogas plants (Gruber 2005).

27. In German: Bundeshauptausschuss’.

28. In German: Haushaltansatz.

29. In German: Bundesverband Bioenergie, BEE.

30. In German: Deutschen Bauernverband, DBV

31. Such as federal emission regulations, construction rights, increasing security requirements, organic waste regulations, waste laws, EU-hygiene guidelines, fertiliser laws, and different state operations (Pecka 2003e).

32. In German: Energieeinspeisegesetz (EEG).

33. In German: Nachwachsende Rohstoffe (NawaRos).

34. In addition to the renewable raw material bonus, an incentive for the use of the produced heat and innovative technologies, i.e. 2 cent/kWh per new plant, is available. The CHP bonus is only available for electricity production, corresponding to the requirements of the ‘CHP modernisation law’. The technology bonus would provide fewer impulses, even though some operators did profit from it. Nonetheless, in this respect the upgrading of biogas to natural gas quality could be favoured, which would stimulate the feed-in of biogas into the gas grid. However, a gas feed-in law is still out of sight in Germany (Pecka 2004b), at least until 2006 when the Green Party would launch another attempt to propose a ‘Feed-in Law for Biogas’ (Einspeisegesetz für Biogas) along the lines of the ‘Feed-in Act for Electricity’ (Gammelin 2006).