BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?
BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?
BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
7.1 Country specific life cycle comparisons 157<br />
Impact category RME Wood vs. oil Wood vs. gas Biogas<br />
Use of fossil fuels Very favourable Very favourable Very favourable Very favourable<br />
Greenhouse effect Favourable Very favourable Very favourable Very favourable<br />
Acidification Unfavourable Comparable Unfavourable Unfavourable<br />
Eutrophication Favourable Unfavourable Unfavourable Comparable<br />
Human toxicity Comparable Favourable Very unfavourable Unfavourable<br />
Summer smog Comparable Favourable Unfavourable Favourable<br />
Regarding the major reasons of the authorities for promoting biofuels (saving of fossil fuels and reduction<br />
of global warming), all three investigated biofuels are highly recommendable. But one has to be<br />
aware of the fact that for biogas these advantages have to be partly paid with higher potentials in acidification<br />
and human toxicity. Moreover, the outcome for RME, which is more favourable as it was the<br />
case in previous studies (the results are unfavourable here only for acidification), partly depends on the<br />
procedure applied for taking into account the contribution of rape seed meal (this comment is valid first<br />
of all for eutrophication and the use of fossil fuels). Research is needed concerning the real relevance of<br />
these negative environmental aspects in the whole assessment. The results indicate that the probably<br />
best biofuel is wood compared to oil heating, because there only the impact potential eutrophication is<br />
unfavourable and the result does not depend on a methodological choice.