Views
5 years ago

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

Executive summary This

Executive summary This report presents the methodology and the results of a project carried out in a co-operative task by eight European countries from 1998 to 2000. Its aim was to assess – by means of life cycle analyses – the environmental effects of various biofuels and to compare them against their fossil equivalents as well as against each other. The following institutes and countries participated in the project: BLT (Austria), TUD (Denmark), INRA (France), IFEU (Germany), CRES (Greece), CTI (Italy), CLM (The Netherlands) and FAT (Switzerland). The study was partially funded by the European Commission and by various ministries and institutes in the countries concerned. The main target groups of this report are intended to be decision makers in the European Commission directorates and in national ministries for agriculture, energy and the environment in each country involved. This summary comprises the following sections: 1 Background 2 Goals of the study 3 Design of the study 4 Results 5 Conclusions and recommendations 1 Background The issue of bioenergy production has been discussed within the European Union over a number of years now under various different aspects, ranging from environmental questions to socio-economic ones. Many individual research projects have been carried out concerning the environmental consequences of increased bioenergy production and utilisation. What has been lacking so far however was a comprehensive international investigation of the effects of large scale bioenergy generation within the European Community considering recent ISO 14040–14043 standards. Furthermore, in order to implement a large scale promotion of bioenergy throughout Europe, it is necessary to establish first of all the economic as well as ecological costs and benefits involved, and secondly, to identify which sources of bioenergy, if any, are the most beneficial ones and the production of which ones is most feasible in each country. 2 Goals of the study The present project provides – for the first time – a high quality decision base regarding the environmental effects of the production and utilisation of biofuels in Europe. It is designed to: • show the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the different biofuels in the various countries involved and the EU, compared to corresponding fossil fuels by means of life cycle analyses • make comparisons between biofuels within each country and the EU • make comparisons between countries and the EU for each biofuel • point out the most favourable biofuels in each country and the European Union respectively, with the help of life cycle analyses and a socio-economic and political analysis Using state of the art methodology in life cycle analysis, comparisons were made between the respective participating countries with regard to each specific biofuel, as well as between different biofuels within each country. In addition, the specific socio-economic and political conditions in each country were taken into account. 3 Design of the study Each of the organisations involved investigated the environmental effects of various biofuels. The results were then used to calculate average values for the European Union. The comparisons carried out in this project are listed below (Table 1).

  • 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 9 and 10: Executive summary 3 the impacts of
  • Page 11 and 12: Executive summary 5 sessed. Tritica
  • Page 13: Executive summary 7 project. In all
  • Page 16 and 17: 10 1 Goals, target groups and gener
  • Page 19 and 20: 2 Biofuels under Study Within Europ
  • Page 21 and 22: 2.2 Principles of the biofuel-fossi
  • Page 23 and 24: 2.3 Life cycles of solid biofuels 1
  • Page 25 and 26: 2.4 Life cycles of liquid biofuels
  • Page 27 and 28: 2.4 Life cycles of liquid biofuels
  • Page 29 and 30: 2.5 Life cycles of biofuels from re
  • Page 31: 2.6 Novel production line: electric
  • Page 34 and 35: 28 3 Life cycle assessment of biofu
  • Page 36 and 37: 30 3 Life cycle assessment of biofu
  • Page 38 and 39: 32 3 Life cycle assessment of biofu
  • Page 40 and 41: 34 3 Life cycle assessment of biofu
  • Page 42 and 43: 36 3 Life cycle assessment of biofu
  • Page 44 and 45: 38 3 Life cycle assessment of biofu
  • Page 46 and 47: 40 3 Life cycle assessment of biofu
  • Page 48 and 49: 42 3 Life cycle assessment of biofu
  • Page 50 and 51: 44 3 Life cycle assessment of biofu
  • Page 52 and 53: 46 3 Life cycle assessment of biofu
  • Page 54 and 55: 48 4 Environmental results: present
  • Page 56 and 57:

    50 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 58 and 59:

    52 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 60 and 61:

    54 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 62 and 63:

    56 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 64 and 65:

    58 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 66 and 67:

    60 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 68 and 69:

    62 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 70 and 71:

    64 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 72 and 73:

    66 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 74 and 75:

    68 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 76 and 77:

    70 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 78 and 79:

    72 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 80 and 81:

    74 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 82 and 83:

    76 4 Environmental results: present

  • Page 85 and 86:

    5 Socio-economic and political anal

  • Page 87 and 88:

    5.2 Socio-economic aspects 81 ple i

  • Page 89 and 90:

    5.3 Visual impact of landscape chan

  • Page 91 and 92:

    5.4 Political factors 85 mentation

  • Page 93 and 94:

    5.4 Political factors 87 the core b

  • Page 95 and 96:

    6 Conclusions and recommendations A

  • Page 97 and 98:

    6 Conclusions and recommendations 9

  • Page 99 and 100:

    6 Conclusions and recommendations 9

  • Page 101:

    6 Conclusions and recommendations 9

  • Page 104 and 105:

    98 7 Annex 7.1.1 Country specific r

  • Page 106 and 107:

    100 7 Annex Rape seed oil methyl es

  • Page 108 and 109:

    102 7 Annex Wheat straw versus ligh

  • Page 110 and 111:

    104 7 Annex Technical applications:

  • Page 112 and 113:

    106 7 Annex Ecological aspects II:

  • Page 114 and 115:

    108 7 Annex 7.1.2 Country specific

  • Page 116 and 117:

    110 7 Annex Willow versus light oil

  • Page 118 and 119:

    112 7 Annex RME versus Diesel fuel

  • Page 120 and 121:

    114 7 Annex Biogas versus natural g

  • Page 122 and 123:

    116 7 Annex Ecological aspects I: l

  • Page 124 and 125:

    118 7 Annex 7.1.3 Country specific

  • Page 126 and 127:

    120 7 Annex Global warming potentia

  • Page 128 and 129:

    122 7 Annex This graph shows there

  • Page 130 and 131:

    124 7 Annex 7.1.4 Country specific

  • Page 132 and 133:

    126 7 Annex Willow versus light oil

  • Page 134 and 135:

    128 7 Annex RME versus diesel fuel

  • Page 136 and 137:

    130 7 Annex Wheat straw versus ligh

  • Page 138 and 139:

    132 7 Annex Technical applications

  • Page 140 and 141:

    134 7 Annex Ecological aspects II:

  • Page 142 and 143:

    136 7 Annex Use of fossil fuels - G

  • Page 144 and 145:

    138 7 Annex g NO 3 eq. / MJ useful

  • Page 146 and 147:

    140 7 Annex In the impact category

  • Page 148 and 149:

    142 7 Annex SME versus diesel fuel

  • Page 150 and 151:

    144 7 Annex Biogas versus natural g

  • Page 152 and 153:

    146 7 Annex 7.1.7 Country specific

  • Page 154 and 155:

    148 7 Annex In all studied chains,

  • Page 156 and 157:

    150 7 Annex Summer smog - The Nethe

  • Page 158 and 159:

    152 7 Annex Human toxicity - The Ne

  • Page 160 and 161:

    154 7 Annex 7.1.8 Country specific

  • Page 162 and 163:

    156 7 Annex Eutrophication potentia

  • Page 164 and 165:

    158 7 Annex 7.2 Comparisons between

  • Page 166 and 167:

    160 7 Annex 7.2.3 Willow versus lig

  • Page 168 and 169:

    162 7 Annex 7.2.5 Rape seed oil met

  • Page 170 and 171:

    164 7 Annex 7.2.7 ETBE from sugar b

  • Page 172 and 173:

    166 7 Annex 7.2.9 Wheat straw versu

  • Page 174 and 175:

    168 7 Annex 7.3 Abbreviations and s

  • Page 176 and 177:

    170 7 Annex ment and the results of

  • Page 178 and 179:

    172 7 Annex Dr. Andreas Patyk: Co-o

  • Page 180 and 181:

    174 7 Annex CTI CTI - Thermotechnic

  • Page 182 and 183:

    176 7 Annex 7.6 Literature Audsley

  • Page 184:

    178 7 Annex bundesamt (ed.): Kraus,

Bioenergy Update 10-02 - General*Bioenergy
Maximising the environmental benefits of Europe's bioenergy potential
Bioenergy Value Chain Research And Development Stakes ... - FARA
LCA of a biorefinery concept producing bioethanol, bioenergy - avniR
Desktop Management Tools — Which One Is the Best?
Choose The One That Best Fits Your Lifestyle! - Java Fundraiser
One Size Fits One: Best Practices for Building - Right Management
Hot vs. Cold Ionization Gauges: Which One is Best for Me?