BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

106 7 Annex Ecological aspects II: impacts related to saved energy – Austria Greenhouse effect Acidification Eutrophication Summer smog Nitrous oxide Human toxicity How to interpret the diagram Advantages for biofuel Advantages for fossil fuel -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Austrian inhabitant equivalents per 100 TJ saved fossil fuel Triticale RME Firewood Straw Biogas The figure shows the results of complete life cycle comparisons where all biofuels investigated by Austria are used for energy production instead of their respective fossil counterparts. The results for the various categories are given with reference to the category "Use of fossil fuel", i.e. 100 TJ of fossil energy saved. For example, for every 100 TJ of fossil energy saved through the substitution of light oil by traditional firewood, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions avoided is equal to those on average generated by about 1,100 Austrian inhabitants in one year. (This is what is meant by "Austrian inhabitant equivalents".) Conclusions European or national energy strategies cannot be based on a sole energy source or energy carrier. A prospective estimation of the bioenergy development is rather difficult. For an overall comparison the different levels of development, different types of useful energy, the different states of the technology and the different costs must be considered. The following table compares the chains only on the basis of fossil fuel saving and availability of land (based on a mix of bioenergy we have estimated a possible increase of 50 to 80 PJ until 2010 under a committed policy for Austria, the evaluation refers to a reduction of 20 PJ fossil energy per chain). Political and social effects are not taken in account. Impact category Triticale Firewood Wheat straw RME Biogas Greenh. effect Mio. t CO2 - 1.81 - 1.49 -1.45 - 1.05 - 3.64 Acidification 1000 t SO2 - 1.03 - 0.481 0.553 3.04 10.6 Eutrophication 1000 t NO3 12.2 1.216 0.910 - 7.74 6.36 Summer smog t Ethylene eq. - 48 19 129 - 122 - 2020 Nitrous oxide t N2O 215 - 22 151 1610 13 Feasibility Realistic Ambitious Possible Ambitious Impossible A negative sign means “advantage for bioenergy” Impacts for 20 PJ fossil fuel saved 6012
7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 107 All types of biofuels are well-suited to reduce the greenhouse gas emission in a substantial quantity. The highest effect per unit can be reached with biogas. The effects of triticale, wood and straw are similar, the difference is caused by the different fossil fuel counterparts. Biodiesel leads to the lowest effect. With all types of biofuels acidification, eutrophication, sommer smog and human toxicity will not be improved or deteriorated dramatically. Except RME the same results can be observed with nitrous oxide. With 20 PJ rape the overall Austria nitrous oxide burden would increase significantly (from 9,000 t/a to 10,600 t/a). With triticale, wood, straw and rape seed, savings of 20 PJ can be reached by each. Biogas from pig manure cannot be produced in the afforded quantity.
Page 1 and 2:
BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FI
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Executive summary.........
Page 5:
Contents III 5.3.2 Variation in col
Page 8 and 9:
2 Executive summary Table 1 Investi
Page 10 and 11:
4 Executive summary Result of the c
Page 12 and 13:
6 Executive summary Economic aspect
Page 15 and 16:
1 Goals, target groups and general
Page 17:
1 Goals, target groups and general
Page 20 and 21:
14 2 Biofuels under study The resul
Page 22 and 23:
16 2 Biofuels under study 2.3 Life
Page 24 and 25:
18 2 Biofuels under study 2.3.3 Mis
Page 26 and 27:
20 2 Biofuels under study 2.4.2 Sun
Page 28 and 29:
22 2 Biofuels under study 2.5 Life
Page 30 and 31:
24 2 Biofuels under study 2.5.3 Bio
Page 33 and 34:
3 Life cycle assessment of biofuels
Page 35 and 36:
3.2 Scope definition of the investi
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
3.3 Inventory analysis 35 then. Eve
Page 43 and 44:
3.3 Inventory analysis 37 using the
Page 45 and 46:
3.4 Impact assessment 39 energy cro
Page 47 and 48:
3.4 Impact assessment 41 The IPCC p
Page 49 and 50:
3.5 Interpretation 43 of the indivi
Page 51 and 52:
3.5 Interpretation 45 Fossil fuel p
Page 53 and 54:
4 Environmental results: presentati
Page 55 and 56:
4.1 Introduction 49 case excluding
Page 57 and 58:
4.2 European results: biofuels comp
Page 59 and 60:
4.2 European results: biofuels comp
Page 61 and 62: 4.2 European results: biofuels comp
Page 69 and 70: 4.3 European results: biofuels for
Page 75 and 76: 4.4 Summary of country specific res
Page 83: 4.5 Summary of comparisons between
Page 86 and 87: 80 5 Socio-economic and political a
Page 96 and 97: 90 6 Conclusions and recommendation
Page 103 and 104: 7 Annex 7.1 Country specific life c
Page 105 and 106: 7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 111: 7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 163 and 164:
7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 165 and 166:
7.2 Comparisons between the countri
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
7.4 List of authors and addresses 1
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
7.5 Data availability 175 7.5 Data
Page 183 and 184:
7.6 Literature 177 Hauschild and We
show all

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?