3.2. Biomass Chances of Development in Poland
Table 7 presents the results of a survey on farmers’ opinions on the price attractiveness of biomass in the context of their revenue from the sale of straw and wood. Most of the respondents pointed out that biomass is attractive in terms of price (33.0%), but 55.6% of respondents did not have an opinion.
As part of the research, farmers were divided into four groups according to the value of their revenue from the sale of straw and wood, and then asked about their opinions.
The analysis shows that 9.6% of farmers with the lowest revenue (up to PLN 3000) believed that biomass was attractively priced, while 2.8% did not share this opinion. The remaining 13.8% of people had no opinion on this subject.
In the group with revenue in the range of PLN 3001–6000, 6.4% of respondents assessed the price attractiveness of biomass positively, 2.8% negatively and 13.8% had no specific opinion.
Among farmers from the PLN 6001–9000 category, only 4.6% of them believed that biomass was attractively priced, 2.8% had the opposite opinion and 14.2% did not express a specific opinion.
The most positive opinions about the price attractiveness of biomass were expressed by farms with revenue above PLN 9000. In this group, 12.4% of people agreed with this statement, 3.0% disagreed and 13.8% had no opinion.
Taken together, these results suggest that revenues from the sale of straw and wood may influence farmers’ perception of the attractiveness of the price of biomass. In particular, farmers with higher revenue more often believed that biomass was attractively priced. At the same time, a large group of respondents in all categories did not have a specific opinion on this topic, which may indicate the need for further research and education in this area.
Table 8 presents the factors that, according to respondents, influence the price of biomass and how these factors are assessed by different groups of farmers depending on their income from the sale of straw and wood. The majority of farmers pointed out raw material availability (41.1%), calorific value (17.6%) and ease of combustion (13.0%) as the most important factors shaping the price of biomass.
For farmers with revenue up to PLN 3000, the most important factor influencing the price of biomass was the availability of raw material (13.4%), followed by calorific value (5.8%) and the possibility of storage (5.1%).
In the group with revenues of PLN 3001–6000, the availability of raw material (10.6%) and calorific value (5.1%) were also the most important, but a large sales market (3.8%) was more important than the possibility of storage (2.4%).
For farmers with revenue in the range of PLN 6001–9000, the availability of raw material was also crucial (5.5%), but other factors were much less important. Finally, for farmers with revenue above PLN 9000, the most important were the availability of raw material (11.6%) and ease of burning (6.2%).
Overall, the availability of the raw material seems to be the most important factor influencing the price of biomass according to all groups of farmers, regardless of their income from straw sales. At the same time, farmers’ responses suggest that their perception of other factors may vary depending on their economic situation.
Table 9 presents external factors that, according to farmers, influence the increase in the price of biomass, as well as how these factors are assessed by different groups of farmers, depending on their income from the sale of straw and wood. The whole group of respondents pointed out the availability of raw materials on the market (23.1%), poor harvest (16.0%) and hard winter (14.0%) as the most important external factors influencing the price of biomass.
For the group of farmers with the lowest revenue (up to PLN 3000), the most important factor was the availability of raw materials on the market (8.5%), followed by a poor harvest (4.3%) and large numbers of local farm animals and a difficult winter (4%).
For the group with revenues in the range of PLN 3001–6000, the factors were evenly distributed, with the greatest emphasis on local enterprises purchasing raw materials (5%) and the availability of raw materials on the market, a difficult winter and poor harvests (4.3%).
For farmers from the group with a revenue of PLN 6001–9000, all factors were less important, but the most important was the availability of raw materials on the market (2.3%).
In the group with the highest revenues (above PLN 9000), the most important factors were the availability of raw materials on the market (8%) and poor harvest (5.4%).
Generally, the availability of the raw material on the market was considered a key external factor influencing the increase in the price of biomass by all groups of farmers, regardless of their income from straw sales. However, the valuation of other factors differed between the groups.
Table 10 shows various factors that, according to respondents, influence the attractiveness of biomass as an energy source and how these factors are assessed by farmers from different income groups from the sale of straw and wood. Price (20%) and the ease of combustion (19.4%) were the most highly pointed out by respondents.
In the group with the lowest revenue (up to PLN 3000), the most significant factor was ease of combustion and the availability of raw material (6.9%), followed by the price (6.4%). For farmers from the PLN 3001–6000 group, the most important factors were caloric value and price (4.8%). For the group with revenues of PLN 6001–9000, the most important factor was the price (2.6%).
However, for farmers from the group with the highest revenue (above PLN 9000), the important factors were the price (7.7%), ease of combustion (7.3%) and availability of raw material (7%).
Generally, all groups of farmers indicated price, ease of combustion and availability of raw material as the key factors influencing the attractiveness of biomass. However, the importance of individual factors varied depending on the revenue group.
Table 11 presents respondents’ opinions regarding the potential of biomass to replace other renewable energy sources (RES), depending on revenue from the sale of straw and wood. Biomass is so easy to use that 29.7% of farmers pointed out that it could replace other renewable energy sources.
Respondents from the group with the lowest revenue (up to PLN 3000) most often expressed uncertainty about the possibility of replacing other renewable energy sources with biomass (14.3%) “I do not know”. However, (10.5%) of respondents from this group believed that it was possible
In the revenue group of PLN 3001–6000, a similar percentage of respondents answered “Yes” (7.7%), “No” (6.6%) and “I do not know” (12.6%).
In the revenue group of PLN 6001–9000, most respondents answered “Yes” (3.8%), and fewer answered “No” (2.2%) and “I do not know” (3.3%).
In the highest revenue group (above PLN 9000), 14.3% said “I do not know”, 11% said “No” and 7.7% said “Yes”.
In summary, respondents’ opinions on the potential of biomass to replace other renewable energy sources were divided and varied depending on the income group.
Table 12 shows the distribution of types of renewable energy sources (RES) on farms depending on the revenue obtained from the sale of straw and wood.
The most popular source of renewable energy among respondents in all income groups was solar energy (photovoltaics), except for the highest revenue group (above PLN 9000), in which biomass was the most popular.
In the group with the lowest revenue (up to PLN 3000), 13.6% of respondents stated that they did not have any source of renewable energy. Among those who had renewable energy, photovoltaics was the most popular (8.6%) and biomass was second (5.5%).
In the revenue group of PLN 3001–6000, photovoltaics was also the most popular (11.4%), and biomass was again the second most popular (5.5%). However, as many as 12.3% of respondents did not have any type of renewable energy. In the PLN 6001–9000 group, 4.1% of respondents indicated photovoltaics, 1.4% biomass and 2.7% did not have any type of renewable energy.
In the highest revenue group (above PLN 9000), the most common renewable energy source was photovoltaics (10.1%), followed by biomass (8.2%).
In summary, the results show that the most popular renewable energy sources on farms are photovoltaics and biomass, and their popularity varies depending on revenue from straw sales.
Table 13 illustrates investment plans in renewable energy sources (RES) on agricultural farms depending on revenues from the sale of straw and wood. The biggest number of respondents wanted to invest in photovoltaics (57.8%), biomass (17.6%) and windmills (12.4%).
Looking at the data, it can be seen that the most popular renewable energy technology in which respondents plan to invest is photovoltaics. It is particularly popular among farms, with revenues from the sale of straw amounting to PLN 3001–6000 and above PLN 9000, where 19.6% and 18.6% of respondents, respectively, declared such an investment. In the revenue group of up to PLN 3000, 13.4% of respondents declared their willingness to invest in photovoltaics.
Biomass (pellet stoves, briquette stoves, etc.) is the second most popular technology in which respondents plan to invest. This is particularly visible in the revenue group of up to PLN 3000, where (6.2%) of respondents declared such plans.
Investments in windmills and biogas plants are less popular. Windmills were more popular in revenue groups up to PLN 3000 and PLN 3001–6000, while biogas plants were the most popular in the income groups up to PLN 3000 and above PLN 9000.
In summary, photovoltaics seems to be the most attractive renewable energy technology for respondents in all revenue groups. However, there is also a noticeable interest in investing in biomass, especially among respondents with lower income from straw sales. Investments in windmills and biogas plants are less popular, but still notable.
Table 14 presents the purpose of renewable energy sources (RES) on farms depending on revenues from the sale of straw and wood. The renewable energy sources can deliver electricity (51.1%) and heat (30.4%) to farms in most cases.
The data suggest that the dominant use of renewable energy sources is to provide electricity for the home/farm and to heat the home/farm. In particular, the vast majority of respondents in revenue groups up to PLN 3000, PLN 3001–6000 and above PLN 9000 declared the use of renewable energy for these purposes. The use of renewable energy sources to sell surplus energy production is much less popular in all income groups.
Furthermore, the responses to the “Other” category suggest that there are other applications of renewable energy beyond those included in this survey. In the revenue group above PLN 9000, 4.3% of respondents indicated other uses of renewable energy sources, which highlights the diversity of renewable energy applications on farms.
In summary, the results show that renewable energy sources are mainly used to provide electricity and heating on farms. The use of renewable energy sources to sell surplus energy production is less popular, although this practice still occurs. The variety of responses to the “Other” category suggests that there are many other applications of renewable energy that are specific to individual farms.
Table 15, below, presents respondents’ opinions regarding the most profitable source of renewable energy (RES) depending on the revenues obtained from the sale of straw and wood. The most profitable renewable energy source was photovoltaics (38.4%), followed wind energy (23.0%) and biomass (13.6%) in most cases.
The data indicate that the majority of respondents in each income group consider photovoltaics to be the most profitable source of renewable energy. This tendency is particularly clear in the revenue group above PLN 9000, where photovoltaics is assessed as the most profitable by 14.1% of respondents.
At the same time, among other renewable energy sources, wind energy seems to be the second most popular answer, with 8.4%. In revenue groups up to PLN 3000 and above PLN 9000, wind energy is rated as the second most profitable source of renewable energy. Biomass (pellets, briquettes, etc.,) and biogas are also assessed as relatively profitable, especially in revenue groups up to PLN 3000 and above PLN 9000. The least popular source of renewable energy in the opinion of respondents is hydropower, which is rated the lowest in all revenue groups.
Taken together, the results indicate that photovoltaics is widely considered to be the most cost-effective source of renewable energy, while wind energy, biomass and biogas are also rated as relatively cost-effective. A hydroelectric power plant is definitely the least popular source of renewable energy in the opinion of respondents.
Table 16 presents respondents’ opinions regarding the most ecological sources of renewable energy (RES) depending on revenues from the sale of straw and wood. Wind energy was considered as the most ecologically friendly renewable energy source (32.0%), followed by photovoltaics (11.2%) and water energy plants (20.7%).
The data show that in most income groups, wind energy is most often indicated as the most ecological source of renewable energy. This trend is particularly visible in revenue groups up to PLN 3000 and above PLN 9000, where 10.3% of respondents in each of these groups indicated wind energy as the most ecological source of renewable energy. Photovoltaics is also often assessed as one of the most ecologically friendly renewable energy sources, especially in revenue groups up to PLN 3000 and above PLN 9000, where 7.7% of respondents in each of these groups chose photovoltaics. Hydroelectric power plants are rated as one of the most ecologically friendly RESs in revenue groups of PLN 3001–6000 and above PLN 9000, while biomass (pellets, briquettes, etc.) and biogas seems to be rated as less ecologically friendly compared to other RESs in all income groups.
In summary, the data indicate that respondents consider wind energy to be the most ecologically friendly source of renewable energy, with photovoltaics in second place. Hydroelectric power, biomass and biogas are generally assessed as less ecologically friendly renewable energy sources.
Table 17 presents respondents’ opinions regarding the competitiveness of biomass compared to other renewable energy sources (RES). In 21.1% of cases, farmers pointed out that biomass on their farm is the most competitive renewable energy source.
It is clearly visible that many people do not have a strong opinion on this subject, which is most visible among respondents with the highest revenue (above PLN 9000), where as many as 21.6% of respondents did not express a specific opinion. Most seem to believe that biomass is competitive compared to other renewable energy sources. This view is most common among respondents with the highest income from straw sales (7.6%) of respondents. Finally, we have a group of respondents who do not consider biomass to be competitive compared to other renewable energy sources. The greatest number of such responses were recorded among respondents with the lowest revenue (up to PLN 3000), where 4.3% of people expressed such an opinion. To sum up, it is clearly visible that the issue of the competitiveness of biomass compared to other renewable energy sources is ambiguous for many respondents. More people seem to think that biomass is competitive, especially in the group with the highest income from straw and wood sales.