BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

136 7 Annex Use of fossil fuels – Greece The production and use of all biofuels under study instead of their fossil counterparts result in net savings of fossil fuels. The substitution of diesel oil with SME results in a net finite energy gain of 2.8 MJ/MJ useful energy while the respective value for biogas is 1.4 MJ/MJ useful energy. In the case of wheat straw energy savings are up to 1.2 MJ/MJ useful energy when it replaces light oil and 1.4 MJ/MJ useful energy when it replaces natural gas. The energy requirements per MJ of useful energy are higher in the SME chain compared to the other two biofuels mainly due to increased energy demand during the production of the raw material (sunflower seed). However, SME proves to be the most favourable biofuel in this impact category saving twice as much energy as the other two biofuels. MJ / MJ useful energy 2 1.75 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 Greenhouse effect – Greece g CO 2 eq. / MJ useful energy 500 400 300 200 100 0 4 Processing & Utilisation Agriculture/forestry part Fossil fuel life cycle Agricultural reference system SME Diesel Biogas Natural gas Straw Light oil Natural gas Processing & Utilisation Agriculture/forestry part Fossil fuel life cycle Agricultural reference system SME Diesel Biogas Natural gas Straw Light oil Natural gas
7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 137 All biofuels under study result in savings of greenhouse gas emissions. The substitution of natural gas with biogas saves 404 g CO2 eq./MJ useful energy, diesel oil with SME 144 g CO2 eq./MJ useful energy and light oil with straw 87 CO2 eq./MJ useful energy. Straw instead of natural gas saves 74 CO2 eq./MJ useful energy. The advantage of biogas in this impact category can be attributed to CH4 use as a fuel in the biogas chain instead of its uncontrolled release to the environment in the reference system as well as the avoided CO2 emissions from the substitution of a fossil fuel with a biofuel. Acidification – Greece Acidification is an impact category in which all biofuels under study present worse results than the reference fossil fuel. The least favourable biofuel is biogas emitting 1.7 g SO2 eq./MJ useful energy more than natural gas due to increased SO2 and NOx emissions from biogas combustion. The increased acidifying emissions in the SME chain (0.5 g SO2 eq./MJ useful energy) are in the agricultural part mainly due to NH3 emissions from nitrogen fertilisation while in the case of straw increased emissions are due to straw combustion. g SO2 eq. / MJ useful energy 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Eutrophication – Greece Processing & Utilisation Agriculture/forestry part Fossil fuel life cycle Agricultural reference system SME Diesel Biogas Natural gas Straw Light oil Natural gas In the impact category eutrophication all biofuels present worse results compared to their fossil counterparts. In the biogas chain NOx emissions from biogas combustion are mainly responsible for the increased emissions of the biogas chain (0.52 g NO3 eq./MJ useful energy more than in the natural gas chain).In the SME chain as shown in the above figure 7.37 g NO3 eq./MJ useful energy are subtracted from the total emissions of the chain due to system expansion (see Chapter 3.2.4., glycerine and sunflower meal) and therefore SME emits 0.67 g NO3 eq./MJ useful energy more than diesel oil through its life cycle due to increased emissions in the agriculture/forestry part. Wheat straw proves to be the least disadvantageous biofuel in this impact category emitting 0.16 NO3 eq./MJ useful energy more than light oil and natural gas.
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:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93: 86 5 Socio-economic and political a
Page 94 and 95: 88 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 141: 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?