BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

62 4 Environmental results: presentation, discussion and interpretation • In Austria, rape seed might be cultivated instead of cattle fodder in the fields. In this case, more cattle feed would need to be imported, e.g. soy bean from Brazil. The cultivation of soybean takes place at the expense of tropical rainforest. Therefore, values for the ecosystem occupation from the tropical rainforest might have to be used, and soy bean as reference values for rape seed. Conclusions Concerning the impact of energy crops on soil quality and biodiversity as assessed in this study the following conclusions can be drawn: • The assessment of the impact of soil quality by energy crops could only partly be carried out due to a lack of data. Most gaps were found in data concerning the weight and the rate of decomposition of the fractions of plant material. • No data are available to validate the results obtained so far with this method. Hence the value of the method used could not be ascertained. • The method does not take into account the scarcity of ecosystems and their ability to regenerate. Therefore, results obtained with this method should be interpreted with care. • There appears to be a difference in the impact on soil quality between cereals, perennials, and other crops. More research is needed to verify and explain this result. Results on harmful rainfall An indication of the erosion hazard during a calendar year is obtained using data, per cropping stage, for the cropping factor and rainfall, which are combined into the so called harmful rainfall (see Chapter 3.4.1). The results obtained showed significant differences, thus for example regarding the energy crops, the amount of harmful rainfall varies from 138 (willow in Germany) to 695 mm/a (sunflower in Italy). In contrast, the amount for grass fallow varies from 56 (Austria) to 143 mm/a (Netherlands) – for more data and results see Annex 7.5. Nevertheless, some results could be drawn: • Rape seed appears to result in high values for harmful rainfall. • As shown in Germany and the Netherlands, perennial crops cause lower erosion risks than annual crops. This may well be explained by the provision of winter cover. • For the annuals, wheat and triticale appear to result in lower erosion risks than sugar beet and rape seed . This is possibly due to the larger row intervals for the latter. • Top three in erosion hazard are sunflower, hemp and sugar beet. Conclusions Concerning the impact of energy crops on erosion as assessed by the method of harmful rainfall, the following conclusions can be drawn: • The method uses readily available data and can easily be carried out. However, factors not included in this method may play a large role in the occurrence of erosion. Therefore, the method needs validation with actual data on erosion. • The method may be improved by including factors to assess the effect of management practices on erosion risk. • Following this method, soil cover is the best way of reducing the harmful effect of rainfall. This is demonstrated by the lower erosion risks from perennial crops and cereals with short row intervals. Still, more research is needed to investigate this issue further and to integrate it into the issue of land use discussed within LCAs. This accounts for both the assessment of primary data as well as an adoption and/or modification of the methodology to LCA standards.
4.3 European results: biofuels for specific objectives 63 4.3 European results: biofuels for specific objectives In the following sections, comparisons between the various biofuels are presented. These are based on the individual comparisons of the biofuels with their respective fossil counterparts. The objective here is to assess which one of the investigated biofuels is best suited for any given purpose. Table 4-3 shows the utilisation objectives and the related biofuels. Some results are described as “non-significant”. This refers to a possible reversal of signs if the uncertainties are very large. Therefore, these assessments are not based on the magnitude of the values shown in the graphs given in “inhabitant equivalents”, but rather on the magnitude of the relative differences biofuel-fossil fuel related to the fossil fuel (bio-fossil / fossil) without normalisation. (The results of the life cycle comparisons biofuel-fossil fuel presented as relative differences are documented in Chapter 7.2.). For further information on the result presentation, the parameters used and sensitivity analysis see Chapter 4.1 and for more detailed information Chapter 3. Table 4-3 Biofuels compared in the light of different objectives Objective Life cycle comparisons considered Technical applications I: Heat production Willow versus light oil Miscanthus versus light oil Traditional firewood versus light oil Wheat straw versus heating oil Technical applications II: Transport Rape seed oil methyl ester versus diesel fuel Sunflower oil methyl ester versus diesel fuel ETBE from sugar beet versus MTBE Ecological aspects I: Efficiency of land use Triticale versus hard coal Willow versus light oil Miscanthus versus light oil Rape seed oil methyl ester versus diesel fuel Sunflower oil methyl ester versus diesel fuel ETBE from sugar beet versus MTBE Ecological aspects II: Impacts related to saved energy Triticale versus hard coal Willow versus light oil Miscanthus versus light oil Rape seed oil methyl ester versus diesel fuel Sunflower oil methyl ester versus diesel fuel ETBE from sugar beet versus MTBE Traditional firewood versus light oil Wheat straw versus heating oil Biogas from swine excrements
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 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 67: 4.2 European results: biofuels comp
Page 71 and 72: 4.3 European results: biofuels for
Page 73 and 74: 4.3 European results: biofuels for
Page 75 and 76: 4.4 Summary of country specific res
Page 83: 4.5 Summary of comparisons between
Page 86 and 87: 80 5 Socio-economic and political a
Page 96 and 97: 90 6 Conclusions and recommendation
Page 103 and 104: 7 Annex 7.1 Country specific life c
Page 105 and 106: 7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 119 and 120:
7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
7.2 Comparisons between the countri
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
7.4 List of authors and addresses 1
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
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?