In the past decade, the number of countries exploring biomass opportunities for the provision of energy services has increased rapidly. This has contributed to make biomass, in the form of solid and liquid fuels, an attractive and promising option among available renewable energy sources. This includes solid biomass and waste, which consists of firewood, charcoal, energy crops, and forest and agricultural residues for the production of heat and power, as well as short crops for the production of liquid fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Also the increasing attention to urban waste has contributed in drawing attention to bioenergy options. What is in place is a result of combined top down and bottom up initiatives. However, nothing seems more powerful at present than the increasing awareness about biomass potentials resulting from successful experiences in both industrialized and developing countries.

We still need a much more forceful move towards renewables if we are to promote our energy systems to a qualitative leap. In this context, bioenergy offers attractive alternatives which are only partially being explored. The enhancement of bioenergy utilization has to count on modern and efficient technologies, which should be deployed on a commercial basis in order to guarantee energy services of high quality. Commercial options are sorted within competitive markets. But how can we talk about competition between bioenergy and other alternatives when choices are not on the table at a fair playing field?

Recent studies indicate that biomass technologies can be competitive with fossil fuel alternatives. One particular advantage of bioenergy is that it can be organized at small scales, from 1 to 100 MW, thus allowing a slow modular increment in energy supply, avoiding stranded investments, and minimizing risks. At a time of restruc­turing of the electricity sector, these are essential advantages, as economies of scale may not be easily realized in volatile markets. In addition, risk aversion and high demand for faster returns by stakeholders will tend to favor smaller projects and a gradual change in the configuration of the electricity infrastructure (Patterson, 1999). The solar economy, which includes bioenergy, favors small-scale and decentralized solutions with local distribution, which differ significantly from the centralized and large-scale configuration of existing energy systems (Wicker et al., 2002; Scheer, 1999).

Bioenergy is not a generalized solution for all countries and regions. The dimension of the regional potential for bioenergy needs to be seen in the context of competing uses for resources demanded for the production of biomass. Where land resources are scarce, energy forests may compete with other land uses and lead to negative impacts on food production. However, there are many countries in the world where this is not the case. Many developing countries such as Brazil, Thailand,

Indonesia and Nigeria have large amounts of biomass potential from different sources and are good candidates for bioenergy technologies.

In Europe, the restructuring of agriculture is releasing land, which can be claimed for biomass production aimed at energy generation. If biomass is to become a major source of energy in Europe as a whole, the potential needs to be assessed in terms of the overall environmental and socioeconomic implications vis a vis other alter­natives. The possibility of increasing supply security through a broader use of bio­energy needs is to be more seriously considered. A more significant increase in the share of biofuels cannot be attained through isolated national initiatives but will require coordinated action, not least to facilitate the formation of biofuel markets (European Commission, 2000).

There is a long way to go before bioenergy becomes a mainstream energy alternative. In particular, there are significant market barriers to be overcome, which can only be achieved through close coordination among the various sectors that need to be involved in bioenergy initiatives. This book discusses some of the opportunities that are already at hand to harness the bioenergy potential and some of the progress that has been achieved in different contexts.

The turning point should rather be understood as a perception among experts, policy makers and industries that a wide window of opportunity has been opened, which should be used to realize the global bioenergy potential. In many cases, the leap is more political than economic given, for example, that the removal of subsidies from nonrenewable alternatives is a necessary step in the process. In many regions, political coordination of efforts is a necessary initial step to establish bioenergy markets. In any case, the leap towards a broader utilization of bioenergy is now more psychological than technological.