BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

148 7 Annex In all studied chains, the biofuel chains cause less impact on the greenhouse warming effect than the fossil fuel chains. Clearly this relates to the difference in use of primary fossil energy (see previous diagram). Another important issue which affects the results is the amount of useful energy per ha produced by each energy crop, because a high production of useful energy per ha can result in a high saving of CO2 emission. For the different energy crops the following useful energy productions per ha have been determined: ETBE 125 GJ/ha, Miscanthus 212 GJ/ha, willow 140 GJ/ha and hemp 197 GJ/ha. For biogas the difference between the emission of CO2 equivalents for the biofuel and the fossil fuel system is the biggest of all studied biofuels. This significant difference is mainly caused by the difference in emission of CH4 in the biofuel and reference system. In the biofuel system we assumed that all CH4 formed in the manure was used in the fermentation process to produce biogas. For the reference system we assumed that all CH4 formed due to spontaneous fermentation was emitted to air. This has a large effect as the greenhouse effect of CH4 is 8 times the effect of CO2 (with a 500 year time horizon, 25 with a 100 year time horizon). The agricultural part of the bioenergy chains results in a higher emission of global warming pollutants than the fallow land in the fossil fuel chains. The reason for this is the more intensive use of the land in the bioenergy chains. The difference in impact on the greenhouse effect for the four energy crops compared with the accompanying fossil fuels is about the same. Only for hemp the difference is smaller. This is partly due to a more intensive use of the land compared with the perennials willow and Miscanthus. Acidification – The Netherlands g SO2 eq./MJ useful energy 1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 willow heat natural gas heat Miscanthus heat natural gas heat Processing & utilisation Agriculture/forestry part Fossil fuel life cycle Agricultural reference system hemp electricity natural gas electricity sugar beet ETBE transport MTBE transport biogas electricity + heat natural gas electricity + heat All biofuels cause a higher effect on acidification than the fossil fuels. For the energy crops this is mainly or partly due to a bigger effect on acidification during the agricultural part. This can be explained by the more intensive fertilisation for these crops compared with fallow, and its accompanying emission of ammonia. The results of Miscanthus show an obvious higher effect on acidification due to the energy production part compared to the energy production part of natural gas. This is partly explained by a 3 times higher NOx emission during the combustion of Miscanthus. The large difference in effect on acidification between biogas and its reference can be explained by a higher volatilisation of ammonia during spreading of the fermented manure compared with non-fermented manure. The reason for this is the
7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 149 higher concentration of mineral nitrogen in fermented manure compared to non-fermented manure. The mineral nitrogen concentration in manure rises due to fermentation. Another reason for acidification is the high NOx emission for combustion of biogas. Eutrophication – The Netherlands g NO3 eq./MJ useful energy 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 willow heat natural gas heat Miscanthus heat natural gas heat Processing & utilisation Agriculture/forestry part Fossil fuel life cycle Agricultural reference system hemp electricity natural gas electricity sugar beet ETBE transport MTBE transport biogas electricity + heat natural gas electricity + heat All biofuels cause a higher effect on eutrophication than the reference system. Hemp has the largest difference in eutrophication compared with the reference system and sugar beet for ETBE the smallest. For Miscanthus the eutrophication score during the energy production part with the fossil reference system is remarkable. This is related with the NOx emissions from combustion (see previous graph). For sugar beet and especially hemp the difference is mainly caused during the agricultural part. This can be explained by the more intensive fertilising for these crops compared with fallow. The difference between biogas and its reference is caused by a higher ammonia volatilisation due to the application of fermented swine manure and a higher NOx emission in the chain of biogas compared with the reference. Compared with the other biofuels, biogas has a larger impact on eutrophication.
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:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 103 and 104: 7 Annex 7.1 Country specific life c
Page 105 and 106: 7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 153: 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?