BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?
BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?
BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?
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-