Põllumajandusministeeriumi ja Maaelu ... - bioenergybaltic

produced by farmers or industry and distributed by logistic services or by fuel stations.
Finally, the last actors in the life cycle of biofuels are the consumers of biofuels.
Social and environmental impacts of using biofuels instead of fossil fuels can only be assessed
if the whole life cycle is considered. In order to facilitate comparison impacts between fossil
and renewable fuels, the following life cycle of fossil fuels has to be taken into account:
1) exploration;
2) transport;
3) refining of crude oil;
4) storage and
5) distribution (fuelling of the vehicle).
Ecological impact and dangers related to biomass based energy products
Estimations of the savings in greenhouse gas emissions vary widely. CO 2 savings found in
studies and reports lie in the range of 25 to 80 percent for RME. This means that 25 to 80
percent less CO 2 is emitted using RME instead of fossil diesel for the same purpose. Besides
CO 2 , another greenhouse gas, N 2 O, is emitted in the biofuel lifecycle, due to the application of
nitrogen fertilizers. N 2 O has a high potential factor for global warming; about 310 times
higher than CO 2 . N 2 O emissions are highest for biofuels produced from rapeseed, because of
the relatively high use of nitrogen fertiliser in rapeseed production. For RME, N 2 O emissions
result in a loss of about 10 to 15 percent of the equivalent CO 2 savings.
In addition to the low level of cost-efficiency and the limited potential for reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, there are also some environmental risks associated with the
production of biofuels. The European Commission promotes the cultivation of biofuel crops
on land which is currently set aside. In fact, this just means an extension of the area used for
intensive farming, since the biofuel crops are among the most commonly used of food crops.
On set-aside land, which is not used for food production, the cultivation of energy crops will
produce a greater environmental impact on soil and groundwater than leaving it fallow. When
land is set aside, it recovers at least part of its soil life (invertebrates), but this will be reversed
if the land is used once again for intensive production of agricultural crops. Nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorous, and pesticides used in intensive agriculture, can end up in soil,
groundwater or surface waters. Here they can cause eutrophication or toxification of
ecosystems, which have consequences for ecosystem health and biodiversity. For instance,
pesticides kill invertebrates in the soil, thereby taking away the source of food for birds such
as the grey partridge, corn bunting and skylark.
Comparison of Biodiesel and biolubricants with fossil analogues
For the production of fossil diesel with energy content of 1 MJ they spent 1.2007 MJ of
primary energy. Hence the energy efficiency of the respective life cycle is 83.28%. It takes
1.2314 MJ of primary energy to produce a quantity of biodiesel with the energy content of one
MJ, which makes the energy efficiency of the respective life cycle 80.55%. There are no big
differences in the energy efficiency of biodiesel compared to fossil diesel (83.28% and
80.55% respectively).
Comparisons of the carbon dioxide emissions of biodiesel and ordinary diesel indicate that
emissions of carbon dioxide from burning biodiesel in the engine are 4.7% bigger than from
burning fossil diesel. At the same time, replacement of fossil diesel with biodiesel reduces
most of the emissions into air during the life cycle. The biggest advantage of biodiesel is its
emission of carbon monoxide (CO). Compared to fossil diesel the respective emission in the
case of pure biodiesel (B100) is 34.5% smaller. And biodiesel B100 has also 32.41% smaller
emission of volatile particles (TPM). However, hydro carbonates (THC) were emitted during
the life cycle of biodiesel B100 35% more than in the lifecycle of fossil diesel. The emissions
110