Reference data of the Biofuels Platform
|
|
|
The data presented below are based on both the life-cycle inventory database ecoinvent and on the calculations of ENERS Energy Concept and the Laboratory of Energy Systems of EPFL (LASEN).
|
The table below introduces the results of the life-cycle assessment (LCA) of the main biofuels production pathways according to the ecoinvent lyfe-cycle inventory database. The environmental impacts are calculated according to 3 evaluation methods, namely:
-
CED (Cumulative Energy Demand): Consumption on non renewable primary energy, expressed in MJp [1]
-
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): emissions of greenhouse gases, expressed in kg CO2 eq. [2]
-
UBP (Ecological scarcity): global ecological balance, expressed in ecopoints or UBP (Umweltbelastungaspunkte) [3]
The results shown below refer to the so-called "Well-to-Tank" approach, concerned exclusively with the production phase of vehicle fuels. If this approach allows the comparison of different production pathways of a given fuel or biofuel (i.e. bioethanol production pathways between them or biodiesel production pathways between them), it does not however allow the comparison of biofuels with conventional fuels because it is not complete.
Table : Environmental evaluation of biofuels production pathways according to a Well-to-Tank approach
| Dataset |
Origin |
Destination |
CED
[MJp/MJ] |
IPCC
[kg CO2/MJ] |
UBP
[UBP/MJ] |
|
| Gasoline, low-sulphur |
GLO |
CH |
1.362 |
|
0.018 |
|
25 |
|
|
| Diesel, low-sulphur |
GLO |
CH |
1.287 |
|
0.014 |
|
20 |
|
|
| Natural gas |
GLO |
CH |
1.284 |
|
0.013 |
|
15 |
|
|
| Bioethanol, from wheat |
CH |
CH |
0.776 |
|
0.094 |
|
407 |
|
| Bioethanol, from potatoes |
CH |
CH |
0.877 |
|
0.093 |
|
519 |
|
| Bioethanol, from rye |
CH |
CH |
0.649 |
|
0.063 |
|
329 |
|
| Bioethanol, from sugarbeet |
CH |
CH |
0.343 |
|
0.030 |
|
8 |
|
| Bioethanol, from sugarbeet molasses |
CH |
CH |
0.459 |
|
0.029 |
|
15 |
|
| Bioethanol, from wood |
CH |
CH |
0.287 |
|
0.022 |
|
38 |
|
| Bioethanol, from grass |
CH |
CH |
0.373 |
|
0.021 |
|
50 |
|
| Bioethanol, from cheese whey |
CH |
CH |
0.246 |
|
0.014 |
|
15 |
|
| Bioethanol, from wheat |
ES |
CH |
1.194 |
|
0.117 |
|
388 |
|
| Bioethanol, from wheat |
US |
CH |
1.037 |
|
0.101 |
|
470 |
|
| Bioethanol, from wheat |
FR |
CH |
0.840 |
|
0.100 |
|
552 |
|
| Bioethanol, from wheat |
DE |
CH |
0.828 |
|
0.091 |
|
384 |
|
| Bioethanol, from rye |
EU |
CH |
0.933 |
|
0.087 |
|
571 |
|
| Bioethanol, from corn |
US |
CH |
0.963 |
|
0.082 |
|
253 |
|
| Bioethanol, from sorghum |
CN |
CH |
0.414 |
|
0.031 |
|
103 |
|
| Bioethanol, from sugarcane |
BR |
CH |
0.225 |
|
0.020 |
|
91 |
|
|
| Biodiesel, from rapeseeds |
CH |
CH |
0.573 |
|
0.063 |
|
228 |
|
| Biodiesel, from soybeans |
BR |
CH |
0.906 |
|
0.108 |
|
468 |
|
| Biodiesel, from rapeseeds |
US |
CH |
0.925 |
|
0.100 |
|
296 |
|
| Biodiesel, from rapeseeds |
EU |
CH |
0.734 |
|
0.073 |
|
266 |
|
| Biodiesel, from rapeseeds |
FR |
CH |
0.618 |
|
0.070 |
|
401 |
|
| Biodiesel, from rapeseeds |
DE |
CH |
0.540 |
|
0.048 |
|
209 |
|
| Biodiesel, from palm fruit |
MY |
CH |
0.573 |
|
0.049 |
|
108 |
|
| Biodiesel, from soybeans |
US |
CH |
0.406 |
|
0.040 |
|
153 |
|
| Biodiesel, from waste cooking oil |
FR |
CH |
0.296 |
|
0.010 |
|
11 |
|
|
| FT-diesel, from straw, UET |
EU |
CH |
0.305 |
|
0.027 |
|
86 |
|
| FT-diesel, from wood, UET |
EU |
CH |
0.314 |
|
0.031 |
|
64 |
|
| FT-diesel, from straw, CUTEC |
EU |
CH |
0.699 |
|
0.066 |
|
146 |
|
| FT-diesel, from wood, CUTEC |
EU |
CH |
0.401 |
|
0.044 |
|
90 |
|
| FT-diesel, from wood, FZK |
EU |
CH |
0.453 |
|
0.038 |
|
134 |
|
| FT-diesel, from miscanthus, TUV |
EU |
CH |
0.622 |
|
0.058 |
|
191 |
|
| FT-diesel, from wood, TUV |
EU |
CH |
0.622 |
|
0.058 |
|
136 |
|
|
| Biomethane, from biogas |
CH |
CH |
0.452 |
|
0.035 |
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
The comparison of biofuels with conventional fuels requires the consideration of the utilization phase of fuels, using an approach referred to as "Well-to-Wheel". A comparative analysis of fuels must take into account the differences of efficiencies at the engine level and shall be based on an equivalent service. In the present case, the service shall refer to a distance travelled (expressed in veh.km or pers.km).
The table below presents the characteristics and performance of various fuels (pure fuels and fuel blends). These figures are derived in part from the ecoinvent database and from various tests carried out on passenger cars (or light-duty vehicles) and/or heavy-duty vehicles.
Tableau : Hypotheses regarding the performance of fuels at the utilization phase
| Fuel |
LHV
[MJ/kg] |
Density
[kg/l] |
Type of vehicle |
Standard |
Fuel consumption
|
|
| Gasoline, low-sulphur |
42.5 |
0.750 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.564 |
0.060 |
0.080 |
|
| Diesel, low-sulphur |
42.8 |
0.840 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.374 |
0.055 |
0.066 |
|
| Natural gas |
45.8 |
0.000 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.935 |
0.064 |
0.000 |
|
| E5 |
41.7 |
0.752 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.497 |
0.060 |
0.080 |
| E10 |
40.9 |
0.754 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.478 |
0.061 |
0.080 |
| E85 |
29.1 |
0.784 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.467 |
0.085 |
0.108 |
|
| Bioethanol, as E5 |
26.8 |
0.790 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
1.426 |
0.053 |
0.067 |
| Bioethanol, as E10 |
26.8 |
0.790 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
1.700 |
0.063 |
0.080 |
| Bioethanol, as E85 |
26.8 |
0.790 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.442 |
0.091 |
0.115 |
|
| B5 |
42.5 |
0.842 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.371 |
0.056 |
0.066 |
| B10 |
42.2 |
0.845 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.368 |
0.056 |
0.066 |
| B20 |
41.6 |
0.850 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.361 |
0.057 |
0.067 |
| B30 |
41.1 |
0.854 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.354 |
0.057 |
0.067 |
| B50 |
39.9 |
0.864 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.340 |
0.059 |
0.068 |
| B100 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.301 |
0.062 |
0.070 |
|
| Biodiesel, as B5 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.308 |
0.062 |
0.070 |
| Biodiesel, as B10 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.308 |
0.062 |
0.070 |
| Biodiesel, as B20 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.307 |
0.062 |
0.070 |
| Biodiesel, as B30 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.306 |
0.062 |
0.070 |
| Biodiesel, as B50 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.305 |
0.062 |
0.070 |
| Biodiesel, as B100 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.301 |
0.062 |
0.070 |
|
| BTL5 |
42.9 |
0.836 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.373 |
0.055 |
0.066 |
| BTL10 |
42.9 |
0.832 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.372 |
0.055 |
0.066 |
| BTL20 |
43.0 |
0.824 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.370 |
0.055 |
0.067 |
| BTL30 |
43.1 |
0.816 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.368 |
0.055 |
0.067 |
| BTL50 |
43.3 |
0.800 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.363 |
0.055 |
0.068 |
| BTL100 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.349 |
0.054 |
0.070 |
|
| FT-diesel, as BTL5 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.352 |
0.054 |
0.070 |
| FT-diesel, as BTL10 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.352 |
0.054 |
0.070 |
| FT-diesel, as BTL20 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.352 |
0.054 |
0.070 |
| FT-diesel, as BTL30 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.351 |
0.054 |
0.070 |
| FT-diesel, as BTL50 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.351 |
0.054 |
0.070 |
| FT-diesel, as BTL100 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
2.349 |
0.054 |
0.070 |
|
| Biomethane |
45.8 |
0.000 |
Passenger car |
EURO 3 |
3.083 |
0.067 |
0.000 |
|
| Diesel, low-sulphur |
42.8 |
0.840 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
9.003 |
0.210 |
0.250 |
|
| B5 |
42.5 |
0.842 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
8.991 |
0.212 |
0.251 |
| B10 |
42.2 |
0.845 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
8.979 |
0.213 |
0.252 |
| B20 |
41.6 |
0.850 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
8.954 |
0.215 |
0.253 |
| B30 |
41.1 |
0.854 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
8.929 |
0.217 |
0.255 |
| B50 |
39.9 |
0.864 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
8.875 |
0.222 |
0.257 |
| B100 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
8.727 |
0.235 |
0.264 |
|
| Biodiesel, as B5 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
8.752 |
0.235 |
0.265 |
| Biodiesel, as B10 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
8.751 |
0.235 |
0.265 |
| Biodiesel, as B20 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
8.748 |
0.235 |
0.265 |
| Biodiesel, as B30 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
8.745 |
0.235 |
0.265 |
| Biodiesel, as B50 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
8.740 |
0.235 |
0.265 |
| Biodiesel, as B100 |
37.2 |
0.888 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
8.727 |
0.235 |
0.264 |
|
| BTL5 |
42.9 |
0.836 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
9.014 |
0.210 |
0.252 |
| BTL10 |
42.9 |
0.832 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
9.024 |
0.210 |
0.253 |
| BTL20 |
43.0 |
0.824 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
9.046 |
0.210 |
0.255 |
| BTL30 |
43.1 |
0.816 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
9.068 |
0.210 |
0.258 |
| BTL50 |
43.3 |
0.800 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
9.113 |
0.210 |
0.263 |
| BTL100 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
9.234 |
0.210 |
0.277 |
|
| FT-diesel, as BTL5 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
9.234 |
0.210 |
0.277 |
| FT-diesel, as BTL10 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
9.234 |
0.210 |
0.277 |
| FT-diesel, as BTL20 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
9.234 |
0.210 |
0.277 |
| FT-diesel, as BTL30 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
9.234 |
0.210 |
0.277 |
| FT-diesel, as BTL50 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
9.234 |
0.210 |
0.277 |
| FT-diesel, as BTL100 |
43.9 |
0.760 |
Lorry 16-32t |
EURO 3 |
9.234 |
0.210 |
0.277 |
|
|
|
[1]
|
The Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) method is designed to evaluate the use of primary energy throughout the life-cycle of a product or service. This includes both direct energy consumption and indirect effects (or grey energy) arising from the use of, for example, building materials or raw materials. This method was developed in the early 1970's, after the first oil crisis and has a long tradition.
|
|
[2]
|
The IPCC method is concerned with the evaluation of (aggregate) emissions of various air pollutants according to their potential impact in relation to global warming. This method assesses the emissions of greenhouse gases associated with anthropogenic activities. It is one of the methods most commonly used in life-cycle analyses (LCA). The aggregation of greenhouse gases emissions is based on so-called global warming potentials (GWP) as published by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Three time horizons are generally used to describe the effects associated with the lifetime of the various pollutants. In the present case, the selected time scale is 100 years. The main greenhouse gases are CO2 (GWP 1), methane (GWP 23) and nitrous oxide (GWP 296).
|
|
[3]
|
The method of ecological scarcity (or UBP) is based on the scarcity of environmental resources. It is based on a comparison between the current flow of a pollutant and the corresponding target value. The latter is measured by means of a permissible use of an environmental resource and is determined from the protection targets defined by law (usually derived from scientific considerations). This method allows the evaluation of a global environmental impact by means of a single aggregate indicator. The impact criteria taken into account are the elimination of waste, emissions to air, soil, surface- and groundwater, energy resources and finally natural resources (including land use).
|
| |
|
|
 |
Management |
|
|
Date : Thursday 23 May (week 21)
Time : 5:47 GMT +0200
Visits : 01223410
|
Biofuels Platform · ENERS Energy Concept · P.O. Box 56 · CH-1015 Lausanne
+41 76 425 9977 · info@eners.ch · www.eners.ch
Copyright 2004-2010 © Biofuels Platform
|
|
