BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

144 7 Annex Biogas versus natural gas for combined heat and power production – Italy 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 -7500 -6000 -4500 -3000 -1500 0 1500 3000 4500 Italian inhabitant equivalents* per 100 TJ The figure shows the results of comparisons between complete life cycles where natural gas is substituted by biogas from swine manure for heat and electricity generation. 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 is equal to the amount which about 1,100 Italian citizens would on average consume in one year (this is what is meant by “Italian inhabitant equivalents”). Again the use of biogas leads to a reduction of summer smog equal to that that 4700 Italian citizens would cause in one year. Conclusion The results show that both biogas as well as natural gas have certain ecological advantages and disadvantages: • Advantages of the biofuel: use of fossil fuels, greenhouse effect and summer smog • Advantages of fossil fuel: acidification and eutrophication 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 biogas or natural gas 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 biogas is assessed as better or worse than natural gas depends upon the focus and priorities of the decision makers.
7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 145 Ecological aspects: impacts related to saved energy – Italy Greenhouse effect Acidification Eutrophication Summer smog Nitrous oxide** Human toxicity** * How to interpret the diagram Advantages for fossil fuel Advantages for biofuel SME Wood Biogas -3500 -2000 -500 1000 2500 4000 5500 Italian inhabitant equivalents* per 100 TJ of energy saved The figure shows the results of comparisons between complete life cycles where each biofuel under study (SME, Traditional Firewood, Biogas) is substituted to a conventional energy carrier (respectively light oil, diesel, natural gas) for energy production. The results for the various categories are given with reference to the category use of fossil fuels, i.e. 100 TJ of fossil energy saved. For example for every 100 TJ of fossil energy saved through the substitution of diesel fuel by SME the amount greenhouse gas emissions avoided is equal to those on average generated by about 550 Inhabitants of Italy in one year (this is what is meant by “Italian inhabitant equivalents”). On the other hand, in this case for every 100 TJ of energy saved an amount of N2O is emitted that is equal to that on average generated by 3400 Italian inhabitants in one year. Note that in this diagram the advantages of the fossil fuels are on the left hand side and vice versa. Conclusion Comparing the investigated bioenergy carriers (in turn compared to their fossil counterparts) against each other, the following result emerges: Greenhouse effect: for all biofuels a clear advantage over the fossil counterparts can be pointed out. The effect is the greatest for Biogas and lowest for SME. Acidification: Wood has a very low positive impact, whereas SME and Biogas have a negative impact. Eutrophication: SME has a good advantage, whereas Wood and Biogas show disadvantages. Summer smog: all the biofuels show advantages, but the results of SME and Wood are non significant. The data for nitrous oxide 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 a specific biofuel 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:
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 149: 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?