BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

108 7 Annex 7.1.2 Country specific results – Denmark In this chapter the results for the Danish energy chains are presented. These are: • Triticale versus coal for electricity production • Miscanthus versus heating oil and natural gas • Willow versus heating oil and natural gas • Wheat straw versus heating oil and natural gas • Biogas versus natural gas for electricity production • Rape seed oil methyl ester (RME) versus fossil diesel fuel In addition, the following biofuels are compared towards each other in order to assess which one is the most suitable in ecological terms for a specific objective. • Technical application • Heat production: Miscanthus, willow and straw • Ecological aspects • Efficiency of land use: willow, RME, triticale and Miscanthus • Saving of energy resources: triticale, Miscanthus, willow, straw, biogas, RME For more information on these comparisons the reader is referred to Chapter 2. As for the European chains, the life cycle comparisons were carried out with regard to specific environmental impact parameters. These were: • Use of fossil fuels • Greenhouse effect • Acidification • Eutrophication • Summer smog • Nitrous oxide • Human toxicity The criteria according to which these were selected as well as an explanation of their meanings can be found in the Chapters 3.3 and 3.4. For reasons of clarity of presentation, the results of minimum-maximum evaluations have not been presented in the result graphs. For more information on this the reader is referred to Chapter 4.1.3.
7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 109 Triticale versus hard coal for electricity production – Denmark Use of fossil fuels Greenhouse effect Acidification Eutrophication Summer smog Nitrous oxide** Human toxicity** * How to interpret the diagram Advantages for biofuel Advantages for fossil fuel -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Danish inhabitant equivalents* per 100 million kWh The figure shows the results of comparisons between complete life cycles where hard coal is substituted by triticale for electricity generation. The unit refers to an amount of one hundred million kWh of electricity. This is equivalent to the average electricity requirement of about 12,750 inhabitants of Denmark in one year or a triticale production of about 19,300 ha/a. Conclusion The results show that both triticale as well as hard coal have certain ecological advantages and disadvantages, depending on the parameters given highest priority. Thus for example, triticale has significant environmental advantages over coal with regard to the greenhouse effect and use of fossil fuels but on the other hand hard coal is superior with regard to nitrous oxide and eutrophication. The other parameters show less significant result in favour of hard coal. The data for human toxicity tend to have a high uncertainty. Therefore this category should not be included in the final assessment. (**For more information on this and the other environmental parameters investigated see Chapters 3.3 and 3.4 as well as 4.1.2.) A further assessment in favour of or against triticale or hard coal cannot be carried out on a scientific basis, because for this purpose subjective value judgements regarding the individual environmental categories are required which differ from person to person. Whether triticale is assessed as better or worse than coal depends upon the focus and priorities of the decision makers. If the main focus of the decision maker is for example on the reduction of the greenhouse effect and the saving of energy resources, triticale will be better suited. If on the other hand the parameters nitrous oxide and eutrophication are deemed to be more important, then coal would be preferred.
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:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64: 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 113: 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?