BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

156 7 Annex Eutrophication potential for wood is larger because of the higher NH3 emissions at combustion. Slurry from the biogas plant contains a bit more nitrogen in the mineral form, which increases the risk of NH3 emissions and NO3 - leaching and consequently causes a worse result for the biogas system. Summer smog (photochemical ozone creation potential POCP) – Switzerland POCP not only depends on hydrocarbons, included as NMVOC emissions, but also on methane. This is important for the biogas system in which no methane is emitted during slurry storage, resulting in a lower score than that of its reference system (see result table below). For the two other investigated biofuels systems, the differences of the NMVOC emissions explain the results. Impact category RME Diesel Wood Light oil Natural gas Summer smog g ethen eq./MJ Eutrophication g NO3 - eq. /MJ Ozone depletion by nitrous oxide in g N2O /MJ MJ refers to MJ of useful energy Ozone depletion by nitrous oxide – Switzerland Biogas Natural gas 0.11 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 4.1 7.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.437 0.020 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 For this impact category only the N2O emissions are included. RME has a considerably higher potential than its fossil alternative because of the possible denitrification of the fertiliser used (see result table above). Human toxicity – Switzerland The impact on human toxicity depends mainly on heavy metals, pesticides, NOx, SO2 and particles. Biogas has a higher score than CHP from natural gas because of higher SO2 emissions. In spite the fact that wood burning causes more particles, the toxicity potential for heating oil is higher due to more heavy metals emitted in different processes (see result diagram below). 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Summary and conclusion Humantoxicity (m3/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 In the result table below there is an overview of the advantages and disadvantages from the biofuels compared to their fossil counterparts. The scheme for determining and assessing the significance of the results for each impact category was published in Wolfensberger and Dinkel (1997).
7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 157 Impact category RME Wood vs. oil Wood vs. gas Biogas Use of fossil fuels Very favourable Very favourable Very favourable Very favourable Greenhouse effect Favourable Very favourable Very favourable Very favourable Acidification Unfavourable Comparable Unfavourable Unfavourable Eutrophication Favourable Unfavourable Unfavourable Comparable Human toxicity Comparable Favourable Very unfavourable Unfavourable Summer smog Comparable Favourable Unfavourable Favourable Regarding the major reasons of the authorities for promoting biofuels (saving of fossil fuels and reduction of global warming), all three investigated biofuels are highly recommendable. But one has to be aware of the fact that for biogas these advantages have to be partly paid with higher potentials in acidification and human toxicity. Moreover, the outcome for RME, which is more favourable as it was the case in previous studies (the results are unfavourable here only for acidification), partly depends on the procedure applied for taking into account the contribution of rape seed meal (this comment is valid first of all for eutrophication and the use of fossil fuels). Research is needed concerning the real relevance of these negative environmental aspects in the whole assessment. The results indicate that the probably best biofuel is wood compared to oil heating, because there only the impact potential eutrophication is unfavourable and the result does not depend on a methodological choice.
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:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112: 7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 161: 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?