Although rural communities are the vanguard for development and incubation of many renewable energy initiatives, those same rural communities are missing out on opportunities for growth of alternative energy programs.
In both the USA and Canada, governments are providing unprecedented levels of financial support for rural business development, driven largely by investments in “green” fuels like biodiesel and ethanol, but not ignoring biogas and wind technologies.
The difference, however, between the three biofuels and wind power is the degree to which rural entrepreneurs are involved in opportunities for investment and growth. Wind has become “big business.” A drive down I-29 in the Midwest USA, for example, is punctuated with literally hundreds of wind turbine blades making their way south, west, east and even north from the Dakotas to flourishing wind farms throughout the American states. These are not being made by farmers, in their back yards. They are being produced by a burgeoning company that supplies almost half of the wind turbines needed in the western USA. In Canada, many of the major wind farms are being established by out-of-country businesses, with international interests. A similar situation exists throughout Europe and , in particular, the Scandinavian countries.
Ethanol, in recent years, has lost the traction it had in the early 1990s, and many companies are being bought up by larger oil companies. However, there are several ethanol facilities that still are owned and operated by rural farmer cooperatives. Unfortunately, as oil companies assume majority control of the industry, markets for blended ethanol dry up.
The major bastion of rural renewable energy entrepreneurship across Europe and North America remains biodiesel. Biodiesel is a rarity in that economy of scale is not necessarily a major advantage. This enables smaller operations to compete with larger corporations, and, given the right business model, capitalize on unique advantages. Biodiesel, to date, also does not face the legislated impediment of having to be blended at the oil company’s refinery. Thus, it can be blended, or used as a standalone fuel, without the pressure of traversing through a major oil company.
In Germany, Sweden, UK, and several other European countries, a myriad of micro-processors are co-located with cheese plants, potato processors, and farmyards, and remain competitive. In Australia, farmers tend to drive development of biodiesel operations.
But rural communities could be generating considerably more local business, rather than merely providing raw products. In Australia, some of the most successful business incubators have been developed, allowing emerging businesses to pool resources and safeguard profitability while growing. Yet, few of these incubators have been established in rural environments. In Canada, the same problem exists. In Manitoba, for example, a huge SmartPark incubator has been established in Winnipeg, focused on technology development. Bothe the provincial and federal governments have offered funding for various innovative rural programs. But of the few rural development groups that have explored construction of a business incubator to stimulate growth, none have actively pursued alternative energy businesses as anchor tenants. In fact, one group actually rejected the concept in spite of having several “green” tenants lining up to take up residency.
Rural communities, in general, have failed to cooperate sufficiently to realize their development aspirations. In Canada, capital pool corporation legislation has enabled local investment in business growth for rural residents. Rural credit unions and banks across North America pool funds to enable local industrial development. Yet, rural development lags. For the most part, lack of specific acumen plays a role. However, lack of focus leads the reasons why rural communities are unable to capitalize on opportunities for green investments.