Biomass Power Generation Market by Feedstock (Agricultural Waste, Animal Waste, Energy Crops), Conversion Technology (Anaerobic Digestion, Direct Combustion, Gasification), Capacity Class, End Use - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Biomass Power Generation Market was valued at USD 5.80 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 6.21 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 7.88%, reaching USD 10.65 billion by 2032.
Strategic overview of biomass power generation and its contributions to decarbonization, grid resilience, circular economy benefits, and investor objectives
Biomass power generation occupies a distinct and increasingly strategic position within the broader energy transition, providing a dispatchable, renewable source of electricity and heat that complements intermittent resources. As policymakers intensify decarbonization objectives and industrial actors seek to close material loops, biomass systems are evolving from legacy combustion plants toward integrated platforms that combine energy production with waste management, nutrient recovery, and circular bioeconomy outcomes. These shifts elevate biomass from a supplementary fuel source to a versatile technology option for grid stability and local value creation.
Over recent years, the sector has seen advancements in technology, shifting feedstock availability, and heightened regulatory scrutiny that together reshape commercial viability and operational design. In response, project developers, utilities, and equipment suppliers are adapting by prioritizing feedstock contracts, modular design approaches, and partnerships that span agricultural, municipal, and forestry supply chains. Consequently, decision-makers must now evaluate biomass not only on capital and operational metrics but also on lifecycle greenhouse gas performance, supply chain resilience, and co-benefit generation for communities.
Industry shifts reshaping biomass power generation emphasize feedstock diversity, modular system uptake, circularity integration, and stronger policy alignment
The landscape for biomass power generation is undergoing a set of interrelated transformations driven by technology, policy, and circular economy principles. Improvements in thermal conversion, gasification, and biochemical pathways have broadened the practical range of feedstocks and improved conversion efficiencies, enabling smaller, modular projects that lower entry barriers for distributed energy applications. At the same time, increasing emphasis on greenhouse gas accounting and sustainability criteria has prompted developers to formalize feedstock sourcing, prioritize low-emissions residues, and incorporate co‑product valorization into project economics.
Furthermore, policy instruments aimed at electrification and emissions reduction are creating differentiated incentives across jurisdictions, encouraging hybridization with storage and renewables to deliver reliable capacity. Private capital is responding with greater interest in risk-mitigating structures such as long-term offtake agreements and integrated supply partnerships. In parallel, digitalization and advanced monitoring now enable more precise fuel blending, predictive maintenance, and performance optimization, which collectively reduce operational uncertainty. Taken together, these shifts are not isolated; they interact in ways that compel incumbents and new entrants to rethink business models, prioritize partnership ecosystems, and accelerate pilot-to-commercial scale learning cycles.
Assessment of how U.S. tariff measures through 2025 have altered biomass power supply chains, equipment sourcing, investor behavior, and operational costs
Tariff actions in the United States through 2025 have materially influenced procurement strategies and supply chain configurations for biomass power projects, prompting firms to reassess sourcing, manufacture, and project timelines. In practice, tariffs on imported equipment and certain industrial inputs raised the relative cost and administrative complexity of cross-border procurement, encouraging developers to source more components domestically or to negotiate alternative suppliers. As a result, procurement teams adopted more conservative lead-time assumptions and prioritized partners with proven domestic manufacturing capabilities or regional supply footprints.
Consequently, project sponsors rebalanced supply chain risk and explored onshore fabrication, local engineering partnerships, and greater use of modularized systems that tolerate longer supplier qualification windows. For technology vendors, tariff-induced price pressure accelerated strategies to localize production or to restructure product portfolios to emphasize higher-value components produced domestically. Meanwhile, operators focused on operational levers such as fuel flexibility and maintenance optimization to contain lifecycle costs. Importantly, these dynamics also altered investment timelines and contract negotiations, as stakeholders sought contractual protections against trade-related volatility and pursued sourcing diversification to maintain project resilience.
Segmentation insights on how feedstock selection, conversion technology, capacity class, and end-use interplay to guide deployment choices and operational focus
Understanding the biomass power sector requires an integrated view across feedstock types, conversion pathways, capacity sizing, and end-use contexts, because each axis interacts with the others to determine technical feasibility and commercial approach. Feedstock considerations range from agricultural waste and animal waste to energy crops, municipal solid waste, and wood residue, each presenting unique characteristics in terms of seasonality, contamination risk, energy density, and logistics complexity. These attributes influence the selection of conversion processes and the scale of deployment.
Conversion technology options include anaerobic digestion, direct combustion, gasification, and pyrolysis, and each pathway has internal subvariants that further refine performance profiles. Anaerobic digestion is examined through dry and wet digestion routes that affect feedstock preprocessing and residue streams. Direct combustion options such as fluidized bed, grate furnace, and pulverized combustion present trade-offs in efficiency, emissions control, and fuel flexibility. Gasification variants like fixed bed and fluidized bed gasifiers alter syngas composition and downstream integration options, while pyrolysis differentiated into fast and slow regimes produces varying yields of bio‑oil, char, and gases. Capacity class-large scale, medium scale, and small scale-influences capital intensity, permitting complexity, and economies of scale, while end-use segmentation among commercial, industrial, and residential consumers determines revenue models, integration with existing thermal loads, and grid interconnection requirements. Consequently, developers should align feedstock strategy, conversion selection, and plant sizing to the targeted end-use to optimize lifecycle performance and local value creation.
Regional perspectives across Americas, Europe, Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific shaping technology uptake, supply chain resilience, and policy engagement in biomass power
Regional dynamics play a pivotal role in shaping technology adoption, supply chains, and policy engagement in biomass power, as resource endowments, regulatory frameworks, and infrastructure maturity differ markedly across geographies. In the Americas, abundant agricultural residues and established forest product sectors create opportunities for distributed and utility-scale installations, but developers must navigate diverse permitting regimes and evolving sustainability expectations. In contrast, Europe, Middle East & Africa presents a heterogeneous mosaic: parts of Europe lead with stringent sustainability standards and incentives for circular bioeconomy projects, while regions in the Middle East and Africa prioritize decentralized energy access and co-generation approaches that leverage local residues.
Asia-Pacific exhibits a broad spectrum of drivers, from rapid industrial demand growth and municipal waste challenges to strong policy support for renewable heat in certain markets. Across all regions, common themes emerge: the importance of aligning feedstock availability with logistics, the rising value of emissions and sustainability credentials, and the need for localized supply chains to manage capital and operational risk. Moreover, cross-regional collaboration and technology transfer remain essential to accelerate best-practice diffusion, though such collaboration must respect local feedstock characteristics and regulatory contexts to be effective.
Competitive dynamics and strategic positioning among biomass power companies, focusing on technology specialization, vertical integration, and partnerships
Company strategies within the biomass power ecosystem are diversified and increasingly strategic, with leading players differentiating through technology specialization, integration of feedstock supply, and the formation of partnerships that extend across the value chain. Technology vendors focus on developing modular and scalable systems to reduce installation timelines and to appeal to a wider range of capacity classes, while engineering, procurement, and construction providers emphasize turnkey solutions that mitigate execution risk for complex projects. Project developers and utilities, for their part, are forging long-term feedstock agreements or investing in upstream logistics to secure continuity and to demonstrate compliance with sustainability criteria.
Financial players and corporate offtakers are also reshaping competitive dynamics by incorporating environmental performance into procurement criteria and preferring contractual structures that allocate fuel and price risk more transparently. Strategic partnerships between technology providers and local operators are emerging as a common model to combine technical expertise with regional market access, and collaborative research efforts continue to refine emissions control, co-product valorization, and integration with hydrogen or carbon management pathways. Overall, corporate positioning centers on reducing technical and commercial uncertainty, demonstrating sustainability credentials, and enabling faster project execution through integrated offerings.
Actionable recommendations for leaders to accelerate deployment, strengthen supply chain resilience, lower investment risk, and align with regulatory changes
Leaders in the biomass power sector should adopt a pragmatic set of actions to convert strategic intent into measurable outcomes. First, prioritize feedstock diversification and formalize supply agreements that incorporate sustainability criteria, quality specifications, and contingency provisions to manage seasonal variability and contamination risks. In tandem, evaluate modular and staged deployment models that allow smaller initial capital outlays while preserving the option to scale as feedstock logistics and offtake agreements mature. This approach reduces time‑to‑operation and enables iterative learning.
Second, invest in operational resilience by implementing advanced monitoring, predictive maintenance, and fuel preprocessing capabilities that improve efficiency and reduce downtime. Third, proactively engage with regulators and community stakeholders to align project design with local expectations for emissions, land use, and social benefits, thereby smoothing permitting and reducing opposition risk. Fourth, explore collaborative partnerships for local manufacturing or assembly to reduce exposure to trade-related disruptions and to shorten lead times. Finally, incorporate contractual protections in procurement and financing agreements to manage policy and trade volatility, while using scenario-based stress testing to inform capital allocation and risk mitigation strategies.
Research methodology describing primary interviews, technical assessments, secondary synthesis, expert validation, and data triangulation for credible insights
The research underpinning this executive analysis employed a multi-pronged methodology designed to produce credible and actionable insights. Primary research included structured interviews with developers, technology providers, utilities, feedstock aggregators, and financing partners to capture current commercial practices, procurement challenges, and operational lessons. These qualitative inputs were complemented by technical assessments of conversion pathways, emissions profiles, and integration options, enabling a grounded comparison of technology performance across different feedstocks and capacity classes.
Secondary synthesis drew on peer-reviewed literature, regulatory documents, industry white papers, and case study evidence to contextualize primary findings and to trace recent policy and market developments. To ensure robustness, findings were triangulated across multiple sources and validated through expert review sessions with independent technical and commercial advisors. The methodology recognizes limitations related to rapidly evolving policy landscapes and localized feedstock variability; accordingly, the analysis emphasizes comparative evaluation, sensitivity to key assumptions, and scenario-based interpretation rather than singular deterministic outcomes.
Concluding synthesis emphasizing strategic opportunities, operational imperatives, and collaborative pathways to advance sustainable biomass power deployment
This synthesis underscores that biomass power generation remains a flexible and strategic element of decarbonization portfolios, particularly when projects align feedstock strategy, conversion technology, and scale with clear end-use requirements. Technological advances and modular deployment options lower barriers to entry and enable more rapid diffusion into commercial and industrial settings, while rigorous feedstock governance and sustainability verification are increasingly essential to secure offtake and financing. The persistence of trade-related frictions and evolving regulatory demands further elevates the importance of supply chain resilience and local partnerships.
In conclusion, successful actors will be those who integrate technical rigor with pragmatic commercial structures, maintain diversified sourcing strategies, and engage proactively with stakeholders to align project outcomes with broader environmental and social goals. By doing so, they can translate the sector’s technical capabilities into durable projects that deliver energy services, waste management solutions, and localized economic benefits.
Please Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Strategic overview of biomass power generation and its contributions to decarbonization, grid resilience, circular economy benefits, and investor objectives
Biomass power generation occupies a distinct and increasingly strategic position within the broader energy transition, providing a dispatchable, renewable source of electricity and heat that complements intermittent resources. As policymakers intensify decarbonization objectives and industrial actors seek to close material loops, biomass systems are evolving from legacy combustion plants toward integrated platforms that combine energy production with waste management, nutrient recovery, and circular bioeconomy outcomes. These shifts elevate biomass from a supplementary fuel source to a versatile technology option for grid stability and local value creation.
Over recent years, the sector has seen advancements in technology, shifting feedstock availability, and heightened regulatory scrutiny that together reshape commercial viability and operational design. In response, project developers, utilities, and equipment suppliers are adapting by prioritizing feedstock contracts, modular design approaches, and partnerships that span agricultural, municipal, and forestry supply chains. Consequently, decision-makers must now evaluate biomass not only on capital and operational metrics but also on lifecycle greenhouse gas performance, supply chain resilience, and co-benefit generation for communities.
Industry shifts reshaping biomass power generation emphasize feedstock diversity, modular system uptake, circularity integration, and stronger policy alignment
The landscape for biomass power generation is undergoing a set of interrelated transformations driven by technology, policy, and circular economy principles. Improvements in thermal conversion, gasification, and biochemical pathways have broadened the practical range of feedstocks and improved conversion efficiencies, enabling smaller, modular projects that lower entry barriers for distributed energy applications. At the same time, increasing emphasis on greenhouse gas accounting and sustainability criteria has prompted developers to formalize feedstock sourcing, prioritize low-emissions residues, and incorporate co‑product valorization into project economics.
Furthermore, policy instruments aimed at electrification and emissions reduction are creating differentiated incentives across jurisdictions, encouraging hybridization with storage and renewables to deliver reliable capacity. Private capital is responding with greater interest in risk-mitigating structures such as long-term offtake agreements and integrated supply partnerships. In parallel, digitalization and advanced monitoring now enable more precise fuel blending, predictive maintenance, and performance optimization, which collectively reduce operational uncertainty. Taken together, these shifts are not isolated; they interact in ways that compel incumbents and new entrants to rethink business models, prioritize partnership ecosystems, and accelerate pilot-to-commercial scale learning cycles.
Assessment of how U.S. tariff measures through 2025 have altered biomass power supply chains, equipment sourcing, investor behavior, and operational costs
Tariff actions in the United States through 2025 have materially influenced procurement strategies and supply chain configurations for biomass power projects, prompting firms to reassess sourcing, manufacture, and project timelines. In practice, tariffs on imported equipment and certain industrial inputs raised the relative cost and administrative complexity of cross-border procurement, encouraging developers to source more components domestically or to negotiate alternative suppliers. As a result, procurement teams adopted more conservative lead-time assumptions and prioritized partners with proven domestic manufacturing capabilities or regional supply footprints.
Consequently, project sponsors rebalanced supply chain risk and explored onshore fabrication, local engineering partnerships, and greater use of modularized systems that tolerate longer supplier qualification windows. For technology vendors, tariff-induced price pressure accelerated strategies to localize production or to restructure product portfolios to emphasize higher-value components produced domestically. Meanwhile, operators focused on operational levers such as fuel flexibility and maintenance optimization to contain lifecycle costs. Importantly, these dynamics also altered investment timelines and contract negotiations, as stakeholders sought contractual protections against trade-related volatility and pursued sourcing diversification to maintain project resilience.
Segmentation insights on how feedstock selection, conversion technology, capacity class, and end-use interplay to guide deployment choices and operational focus
Understanding the biomass power sector requires an integrated view across feedstock types, conversion pathways, capacity sizing, and end-use contexts, because each axis interacts with the others to determine technical feasibility and commercial approach. Feedstock considerations range from agricultural waste and animal waste to energy crops, municipal solid waste, and wood residue, each presenting unique characteristics in terms of seasonality, contamination risk, energy density, and logistics complexity. These attributes influence the selection of conversion processes and the scale of deployment.
Conversion technology options include anaerobic digestion, direct combustion, gasification, and pyrolysis, and each pathway has internal subvariants that further refine performance profiles. Anaerobic digestion is examined through dry and wet digestion routes that affect feedstock preprocessing and residue streams. Direct combustion options such as fluidized bed, grate furnace, and pulverized combustion present trade-offs in efficiency, emissions control, and fuel flexibility. Gasification variants like fixed bed and fluidized bed gasifiers alter syngas composition and downstream integration options, while pyrolysis differentiated into fast and slow regimes produces varying yields of bio‑oil, char, and gases. Capacity class-large scale, medium scale, and small scale-influences capital intensity, permitting complexity, and economies of scale, while end-use segmentation among commercial, industrial, and residential consumers determines revenue models, integration with existing thermal loads, and grid interconnection requirements. Consequently, developers should align feedstock strategy, conversion selection, and plant sizing to the targeted end-use to optimize lifecycle performance and local value creation.
Regional perspectives across Americas, Europe, Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific shaping technology uptake, supply chain resilience, and policy engagement in biomass power
Regional dynamics play a pivotal role in shaping technology adoption, supply chains, and policy engagement in biomass power, as resource endowments, regulatory frameworks, and infrastructure maturity differ markedly across geographies. In the Americas, abundant agricultural residues and established forest product sectors create opportunities for distributed and utility-scale installations, but developers must navigate diverse permitting regimes and evolving sustainability expectations. In contrast, Europe, Middle East & Africa presents a heterogeneous mosaic: parts of Europe lead with stringent sustainability standards and incentives for circular bioeconomy projects, while regions in the Middle East and Africa prioritize decentralized energy access and co-generation approaches that leverage local residues.
Asia-Pacific exhibits a broad spectrum of drivers, from rapid industrial demand growth and municipal waste challenges to strong policy support for renewable heat in certain markets. Across all regions, common themes emerge: the importance of aligning feedstock availability with logistics, the rising value of emissions and sustainability credentials, and the need for localized supply chains to manage capital and operational risk. Moreover, cross-regional collaboration and technology transfer remain essential to accelerate best-practice diffusion, though such collaboration must respect local feedstock characteristics and regulatory contexts to be effective.
Competitive dynamics and strategic positioning among biomass power companies, focusing on technology specialization, vertical integration, and partnerships
Company strategies within the biomass power ecosystem are diversified and increasingly strategic, with leading players differentiating through technology specialization, integration of feedstock supply, and the formation of partnerships that extend across the value chain. Technology vendors focus on developing modular and scalable systems to reduce installation timelines and to appeal to a wider range of capacity classes, while engineering, procurement, and construction providers emphasize turnkey solutions that mitigate execution risk for complex projects. Project developers and utilities, for their part, are forging long-term feedstock agreements or investing in upstream logistics to secure continuity and to demonstrate compliance with sustainability criteria.
Financial players and corporate offtakers are also reshaping competitive dynamics by incorporating environmental performance into procurement criteria and preferring contractual structures that allocate fuel and price risk more transparently. Strategic partnerships between technology providers and local operators are emerging as a common model to combine technical expertise with regional market access, and collaborative research efforts continue to refine emissions control, co-product valorization, and integration with hydrogen or carbon management pathways. Overall, corporate positioning centers on reducing technical and commercial uncertainty, demonstrating sustainability credentials, and enabling faster project execution through integrated offerings.
Actionable recommendations for leaders to accelerate deployment, strengthen supply chain resilience, lower investment risk, and align with regulatory changes
Leaders in the biomass power sector should adopt a pragmatic set of actions to convert strategic intent into measurable outcomes. First, prioritize feedstock diversification and formalize supply agreements that incorporate sustainability criteria, quality specifications, and contingency provisions to manage seasonal variability and contamination risks. In tandem, evaluate modular and staged deployment models that allow smaller initial capital outlays while preserving the option to scale as feedstock logistics and offtake agreements mature. This approach reduces time‑to‑operation and enables iterative learning.
Second, invest in operational resilience by implementing advanced monitoring, predictive maintenance, and fuel preprocessing capabilities that improve efficiency and reduce downtime. Third, proactively engage with regulators and community stakeholders to align project design with local expectations for emissions, land use, and social benefits, thereby smoothing permitting and reducing opposition risk. Fourth, explore collaborative partnerships for local manufacturing or assembly to reduce exposure to trade-related disruptions and to shorten lead times. Finally, incorporate contractual protections in procurement and financing agreements to manage policy and trade volatility, while using scenario-based stress testing to inform capital allocation and risk mitigation strategies.
Research methodology describing primary interviews, technical assessments, secondary synthesis, expert validation, and data triangulation for credible insights
The research underpinning this executive analysis employed a multi-pronged methodology designed to produce credible and actionable insights. Primary research included structured interviews with developers, technology providers, utilities, feedstock aggregators, and financing partners to capture current commercial practices, procurement challenges, and operational lessons. These qualitative inputs were complemented by technical assessments of conversion pathways, emissions profiles, and integration options, enabling a grounded comparison of technology performance across different feedstocks and capacity classes.
Secondary synthesis drew on peer-reviewed literature, regulatory documents, industry white papers, and case study evidence to contextualize primary findings and to trace recent policy and market developments. To ensure robustness, findings were triangulated across multiple sources and validated through expert review sessions with independent technical and commercial advisors. The methodology recognizes limitations related to rapidly evolving policy landscapes and localized feedstock variability; accordingly, the analysis emphasizes comparative evaluation, sensitivity to key assumptions, and scenario-based interpretation rather than singular deterministic outcomes.
Concluding synthesis emphasizing strategic opportunities, operational imperatives, and collaborative pathways to advance sustainable biomass power deployment
This synthesis underscores that biomass power generation remains a flexible and strategic element of decarbonization portfolios, particularly when projects align feedstock strategy, conversion technology, and scale with clear end-use requirements. Technological advances and modular deployment options lower barriers to entry and enable more rapid diffusion into commercial and industrial settings, while rigorous feedstock governance and sustainability verification are increasingly essential to secure offtake and financing. The persistence of trade-related frictions and evolving regulatory demands further elevates the importance of supply chain resilience and local partnerships.
In conclusion, successful actors will be those who integrate technical rigor with pragmatic commercial structures, maintain diversified sourcing strategies, and engage proactively with stakeholders to align project outcomes with broader environmental and social goals. By doing so, they can translate the sector’s technical capabilities into durable projects that deliver energy services, waste management solutions, and localized economic benefits.
Please Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
197 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Increasing integration of advanced gasification technologies for biomass feedstock conversion to improve efficiency
- 5.2. Expansion of biomass co-firing strategies in existing coal power plants to reduce carbon emissions
- 5.3. Rising adoption of anaerobic digestion projects for biogas production from agricultural waste streams
- 5.4. Deployment of distributed small-scale biomass boilers in rural communities to enhance energy security
- 5.5. Development of advanced catalysts for torrefaction processes to produce high-energy biomass pellets
- 5.6. Implementation of stringent sustainability criteria for biomass sourcing to meet regulatory standards
- 5.7. Integration of carbon capture and storage solutions with biomass power plants for negative emissions
- 5.8. Utilization of algae-based biomass feedstock in power generation to diversify renewable energy sources
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Biomass Power Generation Market, by Feedstock
- 8.1. Agricultural Waste
- 8.2. Animal Waste
- 8.3. Energy Crops
- 8.4. Municipal Solid Waste
- 8.5. Wood Residue
- 9. Biomass Power Generation Market, by Conversion Technology
- 9.1. Anaerobic Digestion
- 9.1.1. Dry Digestion
- 9.1.2. Wet Digestion
- 9.2. Direct Combustion
- 9.2.1. Fluidized Bed
- 9.2.2. Grate Furnace
- 9.2.3. Pulverized Combustion
- 9.3. Gasification
- 9.3.1. Fixed Bed
- 9.3.2. Fluidized Bed Gas
- 9.4. Pyrolysis
- 9.4.1. Fast Pyrolysis
- 9.4.2. Slow Pyrolysis
- 10. Biomass Power Generation Market, by Capacity Class
- 10.1. Large Scale
- 10.2. Medium Scale
- 10.3. Small Scale
- 11. Biomass Power Generation Market, by End Use
- 11.1. Commercial
- 11.2. Industrial
- 11.3. Residential
- 12. Biomass Power Generation Market, by Region
- 12.1. Americas
- 12.1.1. North America
- 12.1.2. Latin America
- 12.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 12.2.1. Europe
- 12.2.2. Middle East
- 12.2.3. Africa
- 12.3. Asia-Pacific
- 13. Biomass Power Generation Market, by Group
- 13.1. ASEAN
- 13.2. GCC
- 13.3. European Union
- 13.4. BRICS
- 13.5. G7
- 13.6. NATO
- 14. Biomass Power Generation Market, by Country
- 14.1. United States
- 14.2. Canada
- 14.3. Mexico
- 14.4. Brazil
- 14.5. United Kingdom
- 14.6. Germany
- 14.7. France
- 14.8. Russia
- 14.9. Italy
- 14.10. Spain
- 14.11. China
- 14.12. India
- 14.13. Japan
- 14.14. Australia
- 14.15. South Korea
- 15. Competitive Landscape
- 15.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 15.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 15.3. Competitive Analysis
- 15.3.1. Drax Group Plc
- 15.3.2. Enel Green Power S.p.A.
- 15.3.3. Engie SA
- 15.3.4. RWE AG
- 15.3.5. Vattenfall AB
- 15.3.6. Ørsted A/S
- 15.3.7. Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc.
- 15.3.8. Veolia Environnement SA
- 15.3.9. General Electric Company
- 15.3.10. Siemens AG
- 15.3.11. Ameresco, Inc.
- 15.3.12. Abengoa S.A.
- 15.3.13. E.ON SE
- 15.3.14. Statkraft AS
- 15.3.15. Acciona S.A.
- 15.3.16. Sumitomo Corporation
- 15.3.17. GS EPS Co., Ltd.
- 15.3.18. Hanwha Energy Corporation
- 15.3.19. Nippon Paper Industries Co., Ltd.
- 15.3.20. Hitachi Zosen Corporation
- 15.3.21. EnviTec Biogas AG
- 15.3.22. Xcel Energy Inc.
- 15.3.23. GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited
- 15.3.24. Wuhan Kaidi Holding Investment Co., Ltd.
- 15.3.25. SUEZ S.A.
- 15.3.26. China Everbright International Limited
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
