Views
5 years ago

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

118 7 Annex 7.1.3

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

Bioenergy Update 10-02 - General*Bioenergy