BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

64 4 Environmental results: presentation, discussion and interpretation 4.3.1 Technical applications I: heat production Use of fossil fuels Greenhouse effect Acidification Eutrophication Summer smog Nitrous oxide** Human toxicity** * How to interpret the diagram Advantages for biofuel Advantages for fossil fuel Willow Miscanthus Firewood Straw -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 European inhabitant equivalents* per 100 TJ The figure shows the results of complete life cycle comparisons where straw, firewood, willow and Miscanthus respectively are used for heat production instead of light oil. The results are given for an amount of 100 TJ. This is equivalent to the average heat requirement of 4,000 inhabitants of Europe in one year or for example a Miscanthus production of about 450 ha/a. In this case for example the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that is being saved by substituting light oil by firewood is equal to the amount which about 750 European citizens would on average generate in one year. (This is what is meant by “European inhabitant equivalents”.) Remarks and conclusions Comparing the four investigated bioenergy carriers (in turn compared to their fossil counterparts) against each other, the following result emerges: • Use of fossil fuels and greenhouse effect: all biofuels show quite similar advantages. • Acidification: the biofuels show similar disadvantages or a non-significant result (firewood) • Eutrophication: the residues firewood and straw show small, the cultivated biofuels bigger disadvantages. • Summer smog: willow shows a small advantage, straw and Miscanthus disadvantages and firewood a non-significant result. The data for ozone depletion and human toxicity tend to have a high uncertainty. Therefore these categories should not be included in the final assessment. (**See Chapter 4.1.2 and for details on all impact categories 3.3 and 3.4) Overall traditional firewood seems to have more and greater advantages (or less and smaller disadvantages respectively) than the other biofuels. A further assessment in favour of or against one of the biofuels cannot be carried out on a scientific basis, because for this purpose subjective value judgements regarding the individual environmental categories are required which differ from person to person.
4.3 European results: biofuels for specific objectives 65 4.3.2 Technical applications II: transport Use of fossil fuels Greenhouse effect Acidification Eutrophication Summer smog Nitrous oxide** Human toxicity** * How to interpret the diagram Advantages for biofuel Advantages for fossil fuel RME SME ETBE 10162 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 European inhabitant equivalents* per 100 million km The figure shows the results of complete life cycle comparisons where RME, SME and ETBE respectively are used in passenger cars instead of their respective fossil counterparts. The results are given for a distance of 100 million km being covered by passenger cars using the biofuel instead of fossil fuel. This is equivalent to the average annual mileage of 4,000 Europeans. In this case for example the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that is being saved by substituting MTBE by ETBE is equal to the amount which about 500 European citizens would on average generate in one year. (This is what is meant by “European inhabitant equivalents”.) Remarks and conclusions Comparing the three investigated bioenergy carriers (in turn compared to their fossil counterparts) against each other, the following result emerges: • Use of fossil fuels: all biofuels show quite similar advantages. • Greenhouse effect: all biofuels show advantages which are quite different. SME gives the highest and RME the lowest benefit. • Acidification: the biofuels show disadvantages of very different magnitude with ETBE having the lowest impacts and RME by far the largest. • Eutrophication: SME is the only biofuel with an environmental advantage over the fossil fuel. • Summer smog: the results are non-significant. The data for ozone depletion and human toxicity tend to have a high uncertainty. Therefore these categories should not be included in the final assessment. (**See Chapter 4.1.2 and for details on all impact categories 3.3 and 3.4) Overall RME seems to have more and greater disadvantages (or less and smaller advantages respectively) than the other biofuels. A further assessment in favour of or against one of the biofuels cannot be carried out on a scientific basis, because for this purpose subjective value judgements regarding the individual environmental categories are required which differ from person to person. 5985
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 69: 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 121 and 122:
7.1 Country specific life cycle com
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?