Views
5 years ago

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

122 7 Annex This graph

122 7 Annex This graph shows there is no significant difference between biofuels and their respective fossil equivalents. For RME, SME and ETBE, the POCP ranges between 0 and 7 % less than diesel or MTBE. For the biofuels used to produce electricity or heat, the POCP is significantly lower than for those used to produce liquid biofuels, and the advantages for biofuels are still important: 15 to 20 % less POCP for Miscanthus or straw compared to natural gas, and more than 50 % less POCP for triticale compared to hard coal. Nitrous oxide (N2O emissions) – France g N 2 O eq. / MJ useful energy 0,25 0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 0,00 Triticale 0.12 are still added due to system expansion Hard coal RME 0,4 Diesel SME Diesel 0.10 are added due to system expansion ETBE MTBE Biofuel: Processing & Utilisation Biofuel: Agriculture part Fossil fuel life cycle Agricultural reference system Miscanthus Natural gas Straw Natural gas The large differences in N2O emissions are mainly due to fertiliser production and application (see section on GWP).

7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 123 Human toxicity – France m 3 eq. / MJ useful energy The toxicological impact of a substance is measured in relation to how many m 3 of the environmental medium (air, water or soil) will bring the emission to a level with no toxic effect. 175000 150000 125000 100000 75000 50000 25000 0 Triticale 3350 are substracted due to system expansion Biofuel: Processing & Utilisation Biofuel: Agriculture part Fossil fuel life cycle Agricultural reference system Hard coal RME Diesel 4050 are substracted due to system expansion SME Diesel ETBE MTBE Miscanthus Natural gas Straw Natural gas Concerning human toxicity, except for Miscanthus and straws, there is no significant difference between biofuels and their respective fossil equivalents. For RME, SME and ETBE, it ranges between 0 and 8 % more than diesel or MTBE, and for triticale it's 25 % more than for hard coal, but very low values in comparison to other chains. For the biofuels used to produce heat, the human toxicity is significantly higher than that natural gas, which is the best fossil source of energy concerning this impact. Conclusion In comparison with fossil energy, all the bioenergy chains represent a significant advantage in term of global impact: resources depletion such as primary energy, global warming potential. This advantage is higher with biomass as raw material for electricity and heat than with liquid biofuels. But liquid biofuels are today the single source of energy for transportation. The advantage of bioenergy at the global scale is sometimes weighted by the local or regional impacts such as eutrophication or acidification. In terms of environment, the use of bioenergy is prevailing on an optimum between global and local impacts on environment. Moreover, these different impacts represent a partial view of the environmental impacts such as landscape, which are directly related to the spatial distribution of the energy crops at the national scale and land use.

Bioenergy Update 10-02 - General*Bioenergy
Maximising the environmental benefits of Europe's bioenergy potential
Desktop Management Tools — Which One Is the Best?
Choose The One That Best Fits Your Lifestyle! - Java Fundraiser