BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

118 7 Annex 7.1.3 Country specific results – France The bioenergy strategy in France is depending on the existing energy producers and the availability of raw materials from the forestry and agriculture sectors. Traditional fuelwood for domestic use is the most important source of bioenergy in France (about 8-10 Mtoe per year). A large scale programme, managed by ADEME, is promoting a better use efficiency for this fuel wood and also a utilisation in industries and collectivities. More recently, at the beginning of the 1990's, liquid biofuels for transportation have been implemented at a large scale level according to the Levy's mission (1991). This project is based upon two chains : a) RME – rape seed oil methyl ester – from rape seed oil blended with diesel (5 % in volume without labelling, up to 30 % in urban captive fleets), today this chain represents roughly 300 000 tons of RME per year (~300 000 ha of rape seed grown on set-aside areas) and b) ETBE – ethyl tertiobutyl ether – (47 % ethanol and 53 % isobutylen) from ethanol produced from sugar beet or wheat blended with gasoline (15 % in volume), this chain represents today 100 000 tons of alcohol per year and extension based upon alcohol ex sugar beet is planned. These chains benefit from temporary tax exemption: 0.50 Euro per litre of alcohol and 0.35 Euro per litre of RME. These bioenergy chains, fuelwood and mainly liquid biofuels, are now mature and implemented on an industrial scale. Other bioenergy chains based on lignocellulosic raw materials for electricity and heat production are today in France at the experimental or demonstration level. Specific experiments exist at the agricultural level (Miscanthus, fibre sorghum, Arundo etc.) but agricultural dry residues such as cereal straw represent a high potential of lignocellulosic raw material for these chains. While the results for the whole of Europe are presented in Chapter 4, in the following section are presented the results of all life cycle comparisons that were investigated in France: • Triticale versus coal • Miscanthus versus natural gas • Wheat straw versus natural gas • Rape seed oil methyl ester (RME) versus fossil diesel fuel • Sunflower methyl ester (SME) versus fossil diesel fuel • ETBE from sugar beet versus MTBE 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 (Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential) • 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 minimummaximum evaluations have not been presented in the result graphs. For more information on this the reader is referred to Chapter 4.1.3. How to interpret the diagrams The seven following diagrams show the results of comparisons between complete life cycle of the bioenergy chains studied in France versus their corresponding fossil energy chain. Each of the seven diagrams is concerning a specific impact: primary energy requirements, global warming potential, acidification and eutrophication, summer smog (photochemical ozone creation potential), nitrous oxide (N2O emissions) and finally human toxicity.
7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 119 For each of the 7 diagrams, the abscissa represents a series of 6 comparable couples of energy (1 bioenergy and 1 fossil energy) for example: triticale versus hard coal, RME versus diesel etc. Useful energy is electrical energy for the comparison triticale-hard coal, mechanical energy for the comparisons RME-diesel, SME-diesel and ETBE-MTBE and finally calorific energy for the comparisons Miscanthus-natural gas and straw-natural gas. A direct comparison between bioenergy chains is only correct if the useful energy or energy vector is similar. So, we can compare Miscanthus versus straw , RME versus SME. Primary energy requirements – France In comparison with fossil energy, all the bioenergy chains represent a significant advantage. This advantage is maximum with electricity and heat production respectively from triticale, Miscanthus and straw. The advantage with liquid biofuels (RME, SME & ETBE) is less important but liquid biofuel is a more sophisticated source of energy, especially well adapted to transportation. RME and SME are more efficient than ETBE as the fossil content (methanol) and the industrial transformation (esterification) are less important. The apparent low contribution of agriculture to ETBE versus RME or SME is due to the higher productivity per hectare of sugar beet. MJ / MJ useful energy 4,0 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Triticale 0.33 are substracted due to system expansion Hard coal RME 0.44 are substracted due to system expansion Diesel SME Diesel ETBE 4,6 7,9 MTBE Miscanthus Biofuel: Processing & Utilisation Biofuel: Agriculture part Fossil fuel life cycle Agricultural reference system Natural gas Straw Natural gas
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 123: 7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 165 and 166: 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?

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

Delete template?

Save as template?