BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

76 4 Environmental results: presentation, discussion and interpretation 4.4.8 Switzerland In the result table below there is an overview of the advantages and disadvantages from the biofuels compared to their fossil counterparts. The scheme for determining and assessing the significance of the results for each impact category was published in Wolfensberger and Dinkel (1997). Impact category RME Firewood vs. light oil Firewood vs. nat. gas Biogas Use of fossil fuels Very favourable Very favourable Very favourable Very favourable Greenhouse effect Favourable Very favourable Very favourable Very favourable Acidification Unfavourable Comparable Unfavourable Unfavourable Eutrophication Favourable Unfavourable Unfavourable Comparable Human toxicity Comparable Favourable Very unfavourable Unfavourable Summer smog Comparable Favourable Unfavourable Favourable Regarding the major reasons of the authorities for promoting biofuels (saving of fossil fuels and reduction of global warming), all three investigated biofuels are highly recommendable. But one has to be aware of the fact that for biogas these advantages have to be partly paid with higher potentials in acidification and human toxicity. Moreover, the outcome for RME, which is more favourable as it was the case in previous studies (the results are unfavourable here only for acidification), partly depends on the procedure applied for taking into account the contribution of rape seed meal (this comment is valid first of all for eutrophication and the use of fossil fuels). Research is needed concerning the real relevance of these negative environmental aspects in the whole assessment. The results indicate that the probably best biofuel is wood compared to oil heating, because there only the impact potential eutrophication is unfavourable and the result does not depend on a methodological choice.
4.5 Summary of comparisons between the countries for each biofuel 77 4.5 Summary of comparisons between the countries for each biofuel This chapter is a summary of the results presented in Chapter 7.2 in the Annex, where the environmental effects of all biofuels are compared between the various countries that investigated them. Table 4-4 lists the comparisons carried out in this context: Table 4-4 Life cycle comparisons and the countries that investigated them Life cycle comparison Countries involved Traditional firewood vs. light oil Austria, Italy, Switzerland Triticale vs. coal Austria, Denmark, France, Germany Miscanthus vs. light oil / natural gas Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands Willow vs. light oil / natural gas Denmark, Germany, Netherlands Wheat straw vs. light oil / natural gas Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece Biogas from swine excrements vs. natural gas Austria, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland Rape seed oil methyl ester vs. diesel fuel Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland Sunflower oil methyl ester vs. diesel fuel France, Greece, Italy ETBE from sugar beet vs. MTBE France, Germany, Netherlands The results reflect differences in production and conversion methods within the various countries, leading to differences in the environmental performance of the different fuels. This comparison enables an assessment of where within Europe it might be most efficient to produce any of the biofuels considered here. All country representatives were responsible for the input data of their respective country. Differences in yields also influence the results of the environmental analysis. The differences between countries are most profound with the perennial crops, which may be explained by differences in the scarce experiences with these crops and their cultivation. The influence of this variation in yields on the results is limited however, if GJ primary energy is used as functional unit. The influence is larger when the analysis focuses at efficiency of land use. The results give a very heterogeneous picture: for certain biofuels and impact categories the differences between the countries are relatively small, while for others they are significantly large. The magnitude of the differences appears to be more dependent on the biofuel than the impact categories, thus for some chains, such as wheat straw, the values for all countries and with respect to most impact categories lie relatively closely about the European average, while for other chains, e.g. biogas, the values differ significantly. It is noticeable that with the exception of biogas for all biofuels the parameters use of fossil fuels, greenhouse effect and human toxicity show very similar results between the countries, while for the other categories the differences tend to be larger.
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 and 70: 4.3 European results: biofuels for
Page 75 and 76: 4.4 Summary of country specific res
Page 81: 4.4 Summary of country specific res
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 133 and 134:
7.1 Country specific life cycle com
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?