Views
5 years ago

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

132 7 Annex Technical

132 7 Annex Technical applications II: transport – Germany Use of fossil fuels Greenhouse effect Acidification Eutrophication Summer smog Nitrous oxide** Human toxicity** Advantages for biofuel * How to interpret the diagram Advantages for fossil fuel RME ETBE -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 German inhabitant equivalents* per 100 million km The figure shows the results of complete life cycle comparisons where RME, SME and ETBE respectively are used in passenger cars instead of their respective fossil counterparts. The results are given for a distance of 100 million km being covered by passenger cars using the biofuel instead of fossil fuel. This is equivalent to the average annual mileage of 7,000 Germans. In this case for example the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that is being saved by substituting MTBE by ETBE is equal to the amount which about 700 German citizens would on average generate in one year. (This is what is meant by “German inhabitant equivalents”.) Remarks and conclusions Comparing the three investigated bioenergy carriers (in turn compared to their fossil counterparts) against each other, the following result emerges: • Use of fossil fuels: the biofuels show quite similar advantages (better: RME). • Greenhouse effect: the biofuels show quite similar advantages (better: ETBE). • Acidification: the biofuels show disadvantages of very different magnitude with ETBE having the lower and RME the higher impacts. • Eutrophication: ETBE and RME have similar disadvantages. • Summer smog: the results are non-significant. 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.) The differences between the results of RME and ETBE respectively are very small, but due to its much larger disadvantage regarding acidification, RME shows the less favourable results overall. A further assessment in favour of or against one of the biofuels 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.

7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 133 Ecological aspects I: land use efficiency – 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 Triticale Willow Miscanthus RME ETBE -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 German inhabitant equivalents* per 1,000 ha The figure shows the results of complete life cycle comparisons where willow, Miscanthus, ETBE, RME and triticale 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 1,500 German citizens would on average generate in one year. (This is what is meant by “German inhabitant equivalents”.) Remarks and conclusions Comparing the six investigated bioenergy carriers (in turn compared to their fossil counterparts) against each other, the following result emerges: • Use of fossil fuels and greenhouse effect: all biofuels are advantageous. triticale reveals by far the highest benefits. RME shows the smallest advantages. • Acidification: Nearly all biofuels show disadvantages, ETBE the greatest, willow the smallest. The result for triticale is non-significant. • Eutrophication: all biofuels show disadvantages, triticale the greatest, willow the smallest. • Summer smog: triticale and willow show advantages, Miscanthus show a disadvantage. The results for RME and ETBE are non-significant. 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.) In this case there appears to be no clear overall ranking of the biofuels, as they all have certain advantages and disadvantages. A further assessment in favour of or against one of the biofuels 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.

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