BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

142 7 Annex SME versus diesel fuel for transportation – Italy 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 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Italian inhabitant equivalents* per 100 million km The figure shows the results of comparisons between complete life cycles where SME is used in a diesel engine instead of diesel. The unit refers to an amount of 100 million km. This is equivalent to the average annual mileage of about 4,000 Europeans. In this case for example the amount of fossil fuel saved is equal to the amount which about 1,000 Italian citizens would on average consume in one year (this is what is meant by “Italian inhabitant equivalents”). Again, the use of SME leads to a reduction of greenhouse effect equal to that that 660 Italian citizen would cause in one year. Conclusion The results show that both SME as well as Diesel fuel have certain ecological advantages and disadvantages, depending on the parameters given highest priority, even if SME seems to be more advantageous from a general point of view. • Advantages of the biofuel: use of fossil fuels, greenhouse effect, eutrophication, summer smog (small) • Advantages of the fossil fuel: acidification (small) 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. (**For more information on this and the other environmental parameters investigated see Chapters 3.3 and 3.4 as well as 4.1.2.) A further assessment in favour of or against SME or diesel 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. Whether SME is assessed as better or worse than diesel depends upon the focus and priorities of the decision makers. If the main focus of the decision maker is for example on the reduction of the greenhouse effect and the saving of energy resources, SME will be better suited. If on the other hand the parameter acidification is deemed to be most important, then diesel would be preferred. 4064
7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 143 Traditional firewood versus light oil and natural gas for heat production – Italy Use of fossil fuels Greenhouse effect Acidification Eutrophication Summer smog Nitrous oxide** Human toxicity** * How to interpret the diagram Trad.firewood vs Light oil Trad.Firewood vs Natural gas Advantages for biofuel Advantages for fossil fuel -1100 -900 -700 -500 -300 -100 100 Italian inhabitant equivalents* per 100 TJ The figure shows the results of comparisons between complete life cycles where traditional firewood is used for heating purposes instead of Light oil and Natural Gas. The unit refers to an amount one hundred TJ. This is equivalent to the average heat requirement of about 4,000 inhabitants of Europe in one year. In this case for example the amount of fossil fuel saved using traditional firewood instead of Light oil is equal to the amount which about 1,000 Italian citizens would on average consume in one year (this is what is meant by “Italian inhabitant equivalents”). Again the use of traditional firewood instead of light oil leads to a reduction of acidification equal to that that 50 Italian citizens would cause in one year. Conclusion The results show that traditional firewood has a good advantage over light oil and natural gas: • Advantage for traditional firewood: use of fossil fuels, greenhouse effect, summer smog, acidification versus light oil • Advantages for fossil fuel: eutrophication, acidification versus natural gas 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. (**For more information on this and the other environmental parameters investigated see Chapters 3.3 and 3.4 as well as 4.1.2.) A further assessment in favour of or against firewood or light oil 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. Whether firewood is assessed as better or worse than light oil or natural gas depends upon the focus and priorities of the decision makers.
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:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
90 6 Conclusions and recommendation
Page 98 and 99: 92 6 Conclusions and recommendation
Page 100 and 101: 94 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 147: 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?