27.12.2012 Views

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

6 Conclusions and recommendations 91<br />

Biodiversity and soil quality: this category was assessed using four parameters, namely<br />

• ecosystem occupation as an indicator of loss of biodiversity,<br />

• ecosystem occupation as a measure for life support functions of the soil,<br />

• harmful rainfall (as an indicator of erosion) and<br />

• soil compaction.<br />

For the first and the last one of these no results were obtainable due to a lack of suitable methodology<br />

and data. Regarding ecosystem occupation as a measure for life support functions of the soil there appears<br />

to be a difference in the impacts of cereals, perennials, and other crops respectively. However,<br />

more research is needed to verify and explain this result. Perennial crops and cereals with short row<br />

intervals show lower erosion risks due to their higher degree of soil cover, which reduces the effect of<br />

harmful rainfall.<br />

Result of the comparison between triticale and hard coal for electricity production<br />

Use of fossil fuels<br />

Greenhouse effect<br />

Acidification<br />

Eutrophication<br />

Summer smog<br />

Nitrous oxide**<br />

Human toxicity**<br />

* How to interpret the diagram<br />

Advantages for<br />

biofuel<br />

Advantages for<br />

fossil fuel<br />

-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000<br />

European inhabitant equivalents* per 100 million kWh<br />

The figure shows the results of comparisons between complete life cycles where hard coal is substituted<br />

by triticale for electricity generation. The unit refers to an amount of one hundred million kWh<br />

of electricity. This is equivalent to the average electricity requirement of about 20,000 inhabitants of<br />

Europe in one year or a triticale production of about 5,500 ha/a. In this case for example the amount<br />

of fossil fuel saved is equal to the amount which nearly 6,000 European citizens would on average<br />

consume in one year (this is what is meant by “European inhabitant equivalents”).<br />

See Chapter 4.2.1 for a discussion of the results.<br />

Figure 6-1 Example of result diagram for the comparison between triticale and hard coal<br />

Result interpretation: concerning the interpretation of the results, different approaches are possible,<br />

since this part goes beyond the scientific analysis and incorporates subjective choices. For the presentation<br />

of the quantitative results two different approaches were chosen by the various country representatives,<br />

as explained in Chapter 3.5. The first involved a discussion of the direct values calculated in the<br />

life cycle impact assessment. The second one used converted units in order to enable a comparison of<br />

the relative impacts regarding the various categories. For this purpose the so-called inhabitant equivalents<br />

were used, which express the impacts of the respective fuel production and consumption in com-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!