BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

154 7 Annex 7.1.8 Country specific results – Switzerland Introduction The three Swiss biofuels RME, wood and biogas are shown in comparison with their fossil counterparts. The results are presented per MJ useful energy, which means that efficiency factors (0.36 for diesel engine, 0.75 for a wood boiler, 0.9 for oil and gas boiler and 0.8 for gas in order to produce electricity and heat) are already taken into account. The contributions of the agricultural/forestry parts and the energy production are shown in detail to enhance a clear assessment. The agricultural/forestry part contains all processes on the fields, on the farm or in the forest until farm gate for the biofuel crop as well as for the reference crop. Energy production for biofuels starts with transport from farm and contains all subsequent processes, whereas in energy production of fossil fuels all processes are included. The biogas plant belongs to the energy production, the distribution of the slurry belongs to the agricultural part. It is unfortunately possible to assess the influence of the allocation procedures for RME only partly, although the contributions of the substituted systems for glycerine and rape seed meal can be bigger than the absolute values shown. The – negative or positive – consequences on soil ecotoxicity (due to wood decay for example), which can play an important role from an environmental point of view, could not be assessed in the project. Use of fossil fuels – Switzerland All biofuels consume less fossil fuels per MJ useful energy produced than their fossil counterparts (see result diagram below). The fossil energy demand from RME results mainly from the machinery and fertilisers used in the rape seed growing. Due to the system expansion with soy beans there is even a small bonus in the transesterification step. The diesel system needs almost four times as much fossil energy although the fallow does hardly consume any. Heating oil and natural gas need around 80 times more fossil energy than wood logs for heating. The natural gas system for electricity and heat uses about 3.5 times more fossil energy than the biogas system (with both times the same energy demand for the distribution of the slurry). The biofuel needing the least fossil energy per MJ useful energy is by far wood logs for heat with only 0.01 MJ (see result diagram below). Biogas needs roughly 40 times more energy with 0.4 MJ and RME even 70 times more with 0.96 MJ. The latter fact is not only due to the energy consuming required for growing of rape seed, but also due to the much lower efficiency of the diesel engine compared to the wood boiler. For comparisons between the biofuels one would have to take into account the different system boundaries. 4,0 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 0,085 are subtracted due to system expansion Primary energy demand (MJ/MJ useful energy) Processing & utilisation Agriculture/forestry part Fossil fuel life cycle Agricultural reference system RME Diesel Wood Heating oil Natural Gas Biogas Natural Gas Greenhouse effect (greenhouse warming potential GWP) for 500 years – Switzerland All biofuels have a lower GWP than their respective fossil reference systems (see result diagram below) The GWP for RME origins mostly from the nitrous oxide (N2O) formed due to fertilisation, whereas the burden for diesel is almost entirely due to the fossil carbon dioxide (CO2) at combustion. The difference
7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 155 between the three heating systems stems entirely from the fossil CO2 emissions at combustion. As the energy source of biogas consists mostly of methane, there is a double reduction of GWP compared with its reference system, since the latter emits not only methane during slurry storage but also fossil CO2 at gas combustion. 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 GWP 500 years (g CO2 eq./MJ useful energy) Processing & utilisation Agriculture/forestry part Fossil fuel life cycle Agricultural reference system RME Diesel Wood Heating oil Natural Gas Biogas Natural Gas Acidification – Switzerland All biofuels cause slightly more acidification than the fossil fuel systems compared (see diagram below). Although diesel has a higher sulphur content than RME, the agricultural part of RME is more decisive for the overall impact. The spreading of mineral fertilisers results in ammonia (NH3) – emissions which contribute to acidification. The differences between the wood, heating oil and natural gas systems are based on due to the different burning emissions, namely due to higher NH3 and HCl emissions of wood. Biogas burning emits a lot more sulphur oxides (SO2) than natural gas burning, which explains the higher score for the biogas system. 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 Acidification (g SO2 eq./MJ useful energy) Processing & utilisation Agriculture/forestry part Fossil fuel life cycle Agricultural reference system RME Diesel Wood Heating oil Natural Gas Biogas Natural Gas Eutrophication – Switzerland The score for RME is smaller than for the diesel system (see result table below) in spite of more leaching of nitrate (NO3 - ) and higher ammonia (NH3) emissions due to fertilisation. But the system expansion with soy beans gives such a large reduction that the overall result is in favour of the RME system.
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 107 and 108:
7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 109 and 110: 7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 159: 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?