BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

110 7 Annex Willow versus light oil or natural gas for heat 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 Willow vs light oil Willow vs natural gas -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Danish inhabitant equivalents* per 100 TJ The figure shows the results of comparisons between complete life cycles where light oil (blue rows) or natural gas (light blue) is substituted by willow for heat production. The unit refers to an amount of 100 TJ of heat. This is equivalent to the average heat requirement of about 4,700 inhabitants of Denmark in one year or a willow production of about 600 ha/a. Conclusion The results show that both willow as well as light oil/natural gas have certain ecological advantages and disadvantages, depending on the parameters given highest priority. Willow has significant environmental advantages over light oil with regard to the parameters greenhouse effect and use of fossil fuels but on the other hand the fossil fuels are superior with regard to nitrous oxide and human toxicity. The other parameters show less significant result mostly in favour of fossil fuel. As mentioned, the data for human toxicity tend to have an uncertainty higher than average, and should therefore 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 willow or fossil fuels cannot be carried out on a scientific basis, because for this purpose subjective value judgements regarding the individual environmental categories are required. If the main focus of the decision maker is for example on the reduction of the greenhouse effect and the saving of energy resources, willow will be better suited. If on the other hand the parameter nitrous oxide were deemed to be most important, then light oil or natural gas would be preferred.
7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 111 Miscanthus versus light oil or natural gas for heat production – Denmark Use of fossil fuels Greenhouse effect Acidification Eutrophication Summer smog Nitrous oxide** Humantoxicity** * How to interpret the diagram: Advantages for biofuel Advantages for fossil fuel Miscanthus vs light oil Miscanthus vs natural gas -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 Danish inhabitant equivalents* per 100 TJ The figure shows the results of comparisons between complete life cycles where light oil (blue rows) or natural gas (red rows) is substituted by Miscanthus for heat production. The unit refers to an amount of 100 TJ of heat. This is equivalent to the average heat requirement of about 4,700 inhabitants of Denmark in one year or a Miscanthus production of about 1,100 ha/a. Conclusion The results show that both Miscanthus as well as light oil or natural gas have certain ecological advantages and disadvantages, depending on the parameters given highest priority. Thus for example, Miscanthus has significant environmental advantages over the fossil fuels with regard to the parameters greenhouse effect and use of fossil fuels but on the other hand light oil or natural gas is superior with regard to nitrous oxide, acidification and human toxicity. The other parameters show less significant result in favour of fossil fuel. However, the data for human toxicity tend to have a uncertainty higher than average, and should therefore 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 Miscanthus or light oil/natural gas 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 Miscanthus is assessed as better or worse than the relevant fossil fuels 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, Miscanthus will be better suited. If on the other hand the parameters nitrous oxide and eutrophication are deemed to be most important, then light oil or natural gas 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:
Page 65 and 66: 4.2 European results: biofuels comp
Page 67 and 68: 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 115: 7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 165 and 166: 7.2 Comparisons between the countri
Page 167 and 168:
7.2 Comparisons between the countri
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?

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?