BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

124 7 Annex 7.1.4 Country specific results – Germany Within the context of this project, the various participating countries investigated different biofuels in comparison to their respective fossil counterparts, as was explained in Chapter 2. While the results for the whole of Europe are presented in Chapter 4, in this chapter the results for the individual countries are presented, on which the German results are based. In the following section the results for all those life cycle comparisons are presented that were investigated in Germany. These are: • Triticale versus coal • Willow versus light oil and natural gas • Miscanthus versus light oil and natural gas • Rape seed oil methyl ester versus fossil diesel fuel • ETBE from sugar beet versus MTBE • Wheat straw versus light oil and natural gas In addition, for each country comparisons between its various biofuels have been carried out in order to assess which one is the most suitable in ecological terms for a specific objective. This lead to a number of different questions, in the light of which the various biofuels were compared. Germany looked at four of these, namely: • Technical applications • Heat production: willow, Miscanthus and straw • Transport: RME and ETBE • Ecological aspects • Efficiency of land use: triticale, willow, Miscanthus, RME and ETBE • Impacts related to saved energy: triticale, willow, Miscanthus, RME, ETBE and straw For more information on these comparisons the reader is referred to Chapter 2. As for the German 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 • 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 minimum-maximum evaluations have not been presented in the result graphs. For more information on this the reader is referred to Chapter 4.1.3.
7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 125 Triticale versus hard coal for electricity production – Germany 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 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 German inhabitant equivalents* per 100 million kWh The figure shows the results of comparisons between complete life cycles where hard coal is substituted by triticale for electricity generation. The unit refers to an amount of one hundred million kWh of electricity. This is equivalent to the average electricity requirement of about 15,000 inhabitants in Germany in one year, or a triticale production of about 5,500 ha/a. In this case for example the amount of fossil fuel saved is equal to the amount which about 5,000 German citizens would on average consume in one year (this is what is meant by “German inhabitant equivalents”). Remarks and conclusions The results show that both triticale as well as hard coal have certain ecological advantages and disadvantages. • Advantages of the biofuel: use of fossil fuels, greenhouse effect and summer smog (small) • Advantages of the fossil fuel: eutrophication • Low or no significance: acidification The data for ozone depletion and human toxicity tend to have a high uncertainty. Therefore these categories should not be included in the final assessment. (**See Chapter 4.1.2 and for details on all impact categories 3.3 and 3.4.) A further assessment in favour of or against triticale or hard coal 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.
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:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
4.4 Summary of country specific res
Page 77 and 78:
4.4 Summary of country specific res
Page 79 and 80: 4.4 Summary of country specific res
Page 81 and 82: 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 129: 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 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?