27.12.2012 Views

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

148 7 Annex<br />

In all studied chains, the biofuel chains cause less impact on the greenhouse warming effect than the<br />

fossil fuel chains. Clearly this relates to the difference in use of primary fossil energy (see previous<br />

diagram). Another important issue which affects the results is the amount of useful energy per ha produced<br />

by each energy crop, because a high production of useful energy per ha can result in a high saving<br />

of CO2 emission. For the different energy crops the following useful energy productions per ha have<br />

been determined: ETBE 125 GJ/ha, Miscanthus 212 GJ/ha, willow 140 GJ/ha and hemp 197 GJ/ha.<br />

For biogas the difference between the emission of CO2 equivalents for the biofuel and the fossil<br />

fuel system is the biggest of all studied biofuels. This significant difference is mainly caused by the<br />

difference in emission of CH4 in the biofuel and reference system. In the biofuel system we assumed<br />

that all CH4 formed in the manure was used in the fermentation process to produce biogas. For the reference<br />

system we assumed that all CH4 formed due to spontaneous fermentation was emitted to air.<br />

This has a large effect as the greenhouse effect of CH4 is 8 times the effect of CO2 (with a 500 year time<br />

horizon, 25 with a 100 year time horizon).<br />

The agricultural part of the bioenergy chains results in a higher emission of global warming pollutants<br />

than the fallow land in the fossil fuel chains. The reason for this is the more intensive use of the<br />

land in the bioenergy chains.<br />

The difference in impact on the greenhouse effect for the four energy crops compared with the accompanying<br />

fossil fuels is about the same. Only for hemp the difference is smaller. This is partly due to<br />

a more intensive use of the land compared with the perennials willow and Miscanthus.<br />

Acidification – The Netherlands<br />

g SO2 eq./MJ useful energy<br />

1,4<br />

1,2<br />

1<br />

0,8<br />

0,6<br />

0,4<br />

0,2<br />

0<br />

willow heat natural gas<br />

heat<br />

Miscanthus<br />

heat<br />

natural gas<br />

heat<br />

Processing & utilisation<br />

Agriculture/forestry part<br />

Fossil fuel life cycle<br />

Agricultural reference system<br />

hemp<br />

electricity<br />

natural gas<br />

electricity<br />

sugar beet<br />

ETBE<br />

transport<br />

MTBE<br />

transport<br />

biogas<br />

electricity +<br />

heat<br />

natural gas<br />

electricity +<br />

heat<br />

All biofuels cause a higher effect on acidification than the fossil fuels. For the energy crops this is<br />

mainly or partly due to a bigger effect on acidification during the agricultural part. This can be explained<br />

by the more intensive fertilisation for these crops compared with fallow, and its accompanying<br />

emission of ammonia.<br />

The results of Miscanthus show an obvious higher effect on acidification due to the energy production<br />

part compared to the energy production part of natural gas. This is partly explained by a 3 times<br />

higher NOx emission during the combustion of Miscanthus. The large difference in effect on acidification<br />

between biogas and its reference can be explained by a higher volatilisation of ammonia during<br />

spreading of the fermented manure compared with non-fermented manure. The reason for this is the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!