BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

116 7 Annex Ecological aspects I: land use efficiency – 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 RME Triticale Miscanthus 6700 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 6700 Danish inhabitant equivalents* per 1,000 ha The figure shows the results of complete life cycle comparisons where willow, RME, triticale and Miscanthus respectively are used for energy production instead of their respective fossil counterparts. The results are given for an area of 1,000 ha being cultivated with the respective crop. In this case for example the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that is being saved when 1,000 ha of Miscanthus are cultivated and used to substitute light oil, is equal to the amount which about 350 Danish citizens would on average generate in one year. (This is what is meant by “Danish inhabitant equivalents”). Conclusion Comparing the four investigated bioenergy carriers (in turn compared to their fossil counterparts) against each other, the following result emerges: Growing 1000 ha of willow or triticale will give the greatest advantages in the categories use of fossil fuels and greenhouse effect. Triticale furthermore shows the best results with regard to nitrous oxide and acidification. RME shows the worst or second worst results in all categories, except from an insignificant advantage with regard to summer smog. Miscanthus shows the smallest advantages with regard to use of fossil fuels and greenhouse effect and has average disadvantages with regard to all other categories than human toxicity, and these data should not be included in the final assessment because of a relatively high uncertainty. (**For more information on this and the other environmental parameters investigated see Chapters 3.3 and 3.4 as well as 4.1.2.) It is important to realise that the final assessment of which biofuel is to be preferred depends on the subjective judgements and priorities of the individual decision maker.
7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 117 Ecological aspects II: impacts related to saved energy – 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 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Danish inhabitant equivalents* per 100 TJ 15,000 RME Biogas Triticale Straw Willow Miscanthus The figure can be used to give an answer in the situation where a decision maker wants to support a given amount of bioenergy measured in Joule, and wants to know which energy will give maximum environmental benefits from this support. The figure shows the results of complete life cycle comparisons where RME, biogas, triticale, straw, willow and Miscanthus respectively are used for energy production instead of their respective fossil counterparts (light oil is chosen for Miscanthus, willow and straw). The results are given for an amount of 100 TJ. This is equivalent to the average heat requirement of 4,700 Danes. In this case for example the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that is being saved by substituting light oil by RME is equal to the amount which about 800 Danish citizens would on average generate in one year. (This is what is meant by “Danish inhabitant equivalents”). Conclusion Comparing the six investigated bioenergy carriers (in turn compared to their fossil counterparts) against each other, the following result emerges: RME shows the greatest advantages with regard to use of fossil fuels, summer smog, and human toxicity. Triticale has greatest advances with regard to greenhouse effect, and for use of fossil fuels the advantage is almost as big as for RME. Straw show the smallest disadvantages with regard to nitrous oxide, acidification and eutrophication. A further assessment of what biofuel is most environmental advantageous 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. (**For more information on this and the other environmental parameters investigated see Chapters 3.3 and 3.4 as well as 4.1.2.)
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:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
4.3 European results: biofuels for
Page 71 and 72: 4.3 European results: biofuels for
Page 73 and 74: 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 121: 7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 165 and 166: 7.2 Comparisons between the countri
Page 173 and 174:
7.2 Comparisons between the countri
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?