BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

4.4 Summary of country specific results 75
4.4.7 The Netherlands
Bioenergy chains that have been investigated for The Netherlands are willow and Miscanthus for heat
production, hemp for electricity, sugar beet for ETBE (transport) and biogas from pig manure. The environmental
analysis leads to the following conclusions:
• The amount of useful energy produced (gross energy times efficiency of conversion) by the energy
crops investigated range from 125 GJ/ha for ETBE to 212 GJ/ha for Miscanthus. As expected all
bioenergy chains use far less primary energy than the fossil reference system and far less greenhouse
gases are emitted. This is caused by the use of biomass for the production of biofuel instead of using
fossil resources.
• Besides that, all biofuels have lower impacts regarding summer smog. Only for Miscanthus the difference
between it and the fossil fuel is quite small. This is due to the combustion of Miscanthus
which emits relatively more VOC and benzene than other biofuels.
• On the other hand all biofuels lead to a larger impact on eutrophication. This is partly caused by an
increase in agricultural activities (fertilising) when energy crops are grown compared to fallow land
in the reference system. The increased eutrophication in the case of biogas is mainly related to the
increase in ammonia volatilisation from fermented manure.
• For ozone depletion only nitrous oxide is looked at. All biofuels except biogas cause a higher nitrous
oxide emission than the fossil reference system. This is due to fertilising, and for Miscanthus the
main reason is the emission from combustion.
• For acidification all biofuels cause a higher impact than their fossil counterparts. For hemp and
ETBE this is explained by ammonia emission from fertilising. For willow and Miscanthus it is
mainly caused by NOx emissions from combustion. Biogas from manure leads to more ammonia
volatilisation, which is related to the increased mineral nitrogen content in manure due to fermentation.
• For human toxicity, willow and especially Miscanthus (dioxins from combustion) have distinct disadvantages
compared to the fossil fuels. The other chains have only a minor disadvantage (hemp,
ETBE and biogas).
• Environmental issues that have not been included in the analysis – due to methodological or data
quality problems – should nevertheless be taken into account. From an earlier study (Biewinga &
Van der Bijl 1996, on energy crops in the northern part of The Netherlands) we expect that the impact
on ecotoxicity and persistent toxicity from pesticides will only increase significantly when
growing sugar beet. Willow, Miscanthus and hemp can be grown with little or no pesticides. The
same study expects that the biodiversity – compared with grass fallow – improves when growing
Miscanthus. Hemp scores neutral, sugar beet and willow score negative.
As The Netherlands are a densely populated country, land use efficiency is important. In the intensive
crop rotations in The Netherlands, the space for perennial crops is limited. This limited space can be
used for willow or Miscanthus. The choice probably depends on energy production (higher with Miscanthus)
and polluting emissions from combustion (lower with willow). Multifunctional land use becomes
more and more important in The Netherlands. Therefore biodiversity (better with Miscanthus)
and landscape (better with willow, see chapter 5.3) also play an important role.
Annual crops, like hemp and sugar beet, fit much better into Dutch arable farming than perennials.
In general the results for the annuals sugar beet and hemp go in the same direction, when compared
with their fossil counterparts. When implemented in The Netherlands, the relatively high amount of
fertilisation of hemp is a point for improvement. On the other hand, the useful energy yield of hemp is
higher than from sugar beet. But of course the fuels produced are different: electricity and MTBE respectively.
Finally biogas has good perspectives in The Netherlands, because of the high availability of manure.
Biogas scores better than natural gas, with exceptions for acidification and eutrophication. Biogas
does not compete with energy crops, as no extra land is needed for its production.