BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

158 7 Annex
7.2 Comparisons between the countries for each biofuel
7.2.1 Introduction
Within this project, the various participating countries investigated several biofuels as explained in detail
in Chapter 2. Each biofuel was investigated by at least three countries (with the exception of hemp
which was only investigated by the Netherlands). The various countries carried out their life cycle comparisons
individually, taking into account country specific conditions and data. Thus certain differences
are bound to exist in the results, caused by different climatic conditions as well as socio-economic and
technological ones. These include for example soil fertility and rain fall, topography, field size and crop
yields, which together lead to differences in agricultural practices and the ratio of input to crop yield.
The following chapters show chain by chain the results for the individual countries and the EU together
and give short remarks on the differences.
For the result presentation of the biofuel comparisons between the countries a different format has
been chosen than for the European and the country specific results: the relative differences of the impacts
related to the fossil fuel. The respective figures regarding the environmental effects of the fossil
fuels were subtracted from those of the biofuels, and this value was divided by the figures for the fossil
fuels (in this case the reference unit was 1 MJ). This procedure allows a comparison of country specific
results and of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the biofuels compared to the fossil fuels.
The differences between the impacts of the biofuels can be categorised as follows:
1. For a certain country various input data for several processes are greater/smaller than for the other
countries, so that the sum of the effects of these processes and their aggregation leads to significant
differences between the countries.
2. For a certain country a few input data of one process are much greater/smaller than for the other
countries, so that this process dominates the balance of the inventory and impact assessment.
Only the second category of differences will be discussed.
Table 7-2 summarises the various life cycle comparisons investigated.
Table 7-2 life cycle comparisons investigated
Life cycle comparison Countries involved
Traditional firewood vs. light oil Austria, Italy, Switzerland
Triticale vs. coal Austria, Denmark, France, Germany
Miscanthus vs. light oil Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands
Willow vs. light oil Denmark, Germany, Netherlands
Wheat straw vs. light oil Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece
Biogas from swine excrements vs. natural gas Austria, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Netherlands,
Switzerland
Rape seed oil methyl ester vs. fossil diesel fuel Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland
Sunflower oil methyl ester vs. fossil diesel fuel France, Greece, Italy
ETBE from sugar beet vs. MTBE France, Germany, Netherlands
With regard to the life cycle comparisons concerning traditional firewood, Miscanthus, willow and
wheat straw, only light oil was considered here. The differences between the comparisons with natural
gas can be deduced from the relevant sections in Chapters 4.3 and 7.1 respectively.
The impact categories human toxicity and nitrous oxide will be shown without remarks because of
the high uncertainty of the individual results and therefore coincidental character of differences among
the countries.
For more information on the life cycle comparisons carried out see Chapter 2. For information regarding
the selected impact parameters the reader is referred to the Chapters 3.3 and 3.4 as well as
Chapter 4.1.2.