There are a variety of barriers obstructing the adoption of RETs, which have been widely identified in the literature. These barriers are not all universal; some are specific to a particular region or country, or to the individual technology. The barriers can be categorised into distinct fields; infrastructure and technology, institutional and regulatory, and social and economic.
Infrastructure & Technology
A lack of adequate infrastructure, be it access roads, grid connectivity or just the availability of land, can hinder the development and uptake of RET projects (Mitchell et al. 2011, Painuly 2001) . The lack of infrastructure in rural areas in particular, can deter investors and developers because of the difficulties presented, often leaving these areas isolated from sustainable development (Nautiyal & Varun 2012).
In many developing countries substantial investment is required in order to improve the infrastructure to allow projects to be completed; which in turn increases the overall project costs which may be passed onto the consumer (Mitchell et al. 2011, Painuly 2001, Rady 1992). The Clean development mechanism (CDM) could provide the means by which these costs could be reduced. The CDM was introduced under the Kyoto Protocol and allows governments, private companies and investors from developed countries to earn ‘certified emission reduction’ (CER) credits by contributing to or implementing emission reducing projects in developing countries These CER credits
- 31 -
can be sold or used to meet their Kyoto compliance targets (Akella et al. 2009, AusAID 2000, Kaygusuz 2012, UNFCCC 2014).
A lack of technical knowledge and skilled personnel for setting up and operating these technologies in a country can also lead to problems in attracting investors as well as assuring the long term success of a project (Del Río 2007, Painuly 2001). Adequate levels of training and skill development needs to be made available within a host country to ensure some level of autonomy, which will help ensure long term success and viability.
In some countries the lack of technical experience in dealing with RETs can result in a lack of adequate standards and codes for regulating their set up and operation (Painuly 2001). This can lead to performance issues as the products’ quality can vary which can directly affect the perception and penetration of these technologies (Painuly 2001). Institutional & Regulatory
Institutional and regulatory barriers often arise from a lack of knowledge and experience in the use and application of RETs by policy makers (Dinesh Babu & Michaelowa 2003, Dombi et al. 2014, Mitchell et al. 2011). This knowledge deficit can result in poorly designed policies can lead to improper implementation of RETs. The IPCC identified that a lack of knowledge in existing policy options means that some policymakers are not making use of the experiences of others when trying to design and implement their own RET policies. By not using this information they are overlooking how these policies worked and were implemented, factors that contributed to their success or failure, as well as the costs associated and the difficulties and benefits experienced as a result of their enactment and application (Mitchell et al. 2011).
In addition it was noted that a lack of information being reported on how effective policies are once implemented can hamper the design of new policies as well as the natural improvement of existing one (Mitchell et al. 2011). Failed policies can lead to a lack of confidence in those introducing them as well as the technologies they are design to promote (Painuly 2001). Increased uncertainties and a lack of confidence can contribute to increased project costs (Mitchell et al. 2011, Painuly 2001). It is therefore vital that policymakers communicate with the relevant stakeholders and clearly outline the benefits as well as any potential issues, this will help reduce policy opposition (Mitchell et al. 2011)
- 32 -
Other regulatory barriers arise from the fact that many countries lack the institutions and framework for dealing with RETs systems (de Jager & Rathmann 2008, Dombi et al. 2014, Moomow et al. 2011, Painuly 2001, Reddy & Painuly 2004). In many cases the regulations are designed on the assumption that the energy systems are large and centralised and therefore do not make the introduction of new, smaller scale systems easy (Moomow et al. 2011).
Economic & Social
Many of the social barriers are centred on acceptance of the technology or the services they offer (Moomow et al. 2011, Painuly 2001). These barriers may stem from concerns surrounding the impacts on the local environment, economy, as well as competition for local water and land resources. These concerns often result from a lack of knowledge and information of the benefits RETs can offer (Del Río 2007, Dinesh Babu & Michaelowa 2003, Dombi et al. 2014, Moomow et al. 2011, Reddy & Painuly 2004). Reddy & Painuly (2004) identified that the use of RETs is often perceived to be associated with some level of discomfort or sacrifice, in comparison to the use of conventional technologies, rather than offering an equivalent if not superior energy resource (Reddy & Painuly 2004). Acceptance is a key requirement in order to maintain market viability and ultimately enable the scaling up of RET projects. If the target communities are hostile towards the introduction of new RETs, the likelihood of their success is reduced (Cohen et al. 2014, Karytsas & Theodoropoulou 2014, Moomow et al. 2011, Painuly 2001).
In many cases overcoming these barriers can be achieved by establishing dedicated lines of communication between the planners and stakeholders from an early stage of planning (Moomow et al. 2011). By incorporating public participation into planning decisions and by educating the target populations of the long and short term benefits of using such technologies for energy generation, their acceptance and successful implementation should greatly improve.
Education programmes alongside the introduction of RETs not only help improve the public perception of the technologies but also provides training and experience to maintenance personnel who will maintain the equipment after installation (Bhide & Monroy 2011). A lack of sufficient power has also been highlighted as a problem, which is often a result of increased demand seen in newly connected communities who energy requirements increase after experiencing the services offered (AusAID 2000).
- 33 -
Planning of RETs projects should therefore take into account not just the basic energy requirements but the potential increase in order to be successful.
The high costs associated with the installation and maintenance of many RETs can often restrict access to them as they become an unaffordable solution for energy provision for poorer communities (Dombi et al. 2014, Painuly 2001, Reddy & Painuly 2004). However many policymakers may not recognise the true value of RETs in relation to the current energy market despite the high initial capital costs (AusAID 2000, Del Río 2007, Dinesh Babu & Michaelowa 2003, Mitchell et al. 2011, Painuly 2001, Reddy & Painuly 2004). In many cases only when the social benefits of using these technologies translate into clear public support will investments from governments or private stakeholders be risked (Del Río 2007, Rady 1992).
The additional costs that result from any need to improve infrastructure to enable the implementation of RETs can also be passed onto the consumer as mentioned earlier which can lead to problems of uptake when the costs start to exceed those in comparison to more conventional means of energy provision (Mitchell et al. 2011, Painuly 2001).
Financial institutions and private investors are also often reluctant to provide funding for small scale projects that are associated with such risks (Del Río 2007, Painuly 2001). In some cases institutions lack any form of strategy on how to fund these types of projects which makes accessing adequate and affordable capital harder (Del Río 2007, Dinesh Babu & Michaelowa 2003, Painuly 2001, Reddy & Painuly 2004). This can therefore often make it almost impossible for people with low income or small firms to invest in these types of technologies (Reddy & Painuly 2004)