BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
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:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83:
4.5 Summary of comparisons between
Page 86 and 87:
80 5 Socio-economic and political a
Page 88 and 89: 82 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 137: 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?

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

Delete template?

Save as template?