Viewls - WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels ...

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
VIEWLS – WP2
Environmental and economic
performance of biofuels
VOLUME II - APPENDICES
1

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
Environmental and economic performance of
biofuels
VOLUME II - APPENDICES
Madrid, Spain, April 2005.
The working group was formed by
Manuel Varela, CIEMAT, Spain
Carmen Lago, CIEMAT, Spain
Gerfried Jungmeier, Joanneum Research, Austria
Kurt Könighofer, Joanneum Research, Austria
Jens Dall Bentzen, COWI, Denmark
Thomas Odgaard, COWI, Denmark
Anke Swets, SenterNovem, The Netherlands
Eric van den Heuvel, SenterNovem, The Netherlands
Ann Segerborg-Fick, Stem, Sweden
Lazaros Karaoglanoglou, NTUA, Greece
Josef Rathbauer, BLT, Austria
Ingeborg Bolter, BLT, Austria
Theo de Lange, ECN, The Netherlands
Ruud Egging, ECN, The Netherlands
Warren Mabee, UBC, Canada
Etienne Poitrat, ADEME, France
More information on this project visiting
http://www.viewls.org
3

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX 1. COLLECTED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES........................................7
APPENDIX 2. CURRENCY CONVERSION PROCEDURE.......................................35
APPENDIX 3. BIOETHANOL FACT SHEET ..............................................................41
APPENDIX 4. BIO-ETBE FACT SHEET ......................................................................53
APPENDIX 5. BIOMETHANOL FACT SHEET...........................................................61
APPENDIX 6. BIO-MTBE FACT SHEET .....................................................................71
APPENDIX 7. PURE VEGETABLE OIL FACT SHEET.............................................77
APPENDIX 8. BIODIESEL FACT SHEET....................................................................85
APPENDIX 9. FISCHER-TROPSCH DIESEL FACT SHEET....................................95
APPENDIX 10. BIO-DME FACT SHEET....................................................................105
APPENDIX 11. BIOGAS FACT SHEET ......................................................................115
APPENDIX 12. GASEOUS BIOHYDROGEN FACT SHEET...................................125
APPENDIX 13. LIQUID BIOHYDROGEN FACT SHEET .......................................135
APPENDIX 14. BIO-SNG FACT SHEET.....................................................................145
APPENDIX 15. SUMMARY BIOFUELS FACT SHEET ...........................................153
5

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 1
COLLECTED INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES
7

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
EXPLANATORY NOTE: The following list shows the studies used in VIEWLS WP-2. Bold studies are the
selected ones to carry out the environmental and economic performance of the different biofuels.
[1] AFB-net. 2001. Export & Import possibilities and fuel prices of biomass in 20 European countries. EU
Altener Programme. English.
[2] Ahlvik P., Brandberg Å. 2001. Well-to-wheel efficiency for alternative fuels from natural gas and
biomass. Ecotraffic. English.
[3] Ahrenfeldt J. Pedersen T., Henriksen U., Schramm J. 2000. Ford VSG 411 Fuelled by Producer Gas
from a Two-Stage Gasifier. MEK, DTU. English.
[4] Ahring B., Belinda A. 2003. Process Description of DBC. WO 01/60752 A1. EBM, DTU and Risø.
English.
[5] Alexopoulou E., Chartziathanasiou A.1999. Description of growing experience on sweet sorghum in
Greece. CRES. English.
[6] Alexopoulou E., Charziathanasiou A. 1999. Efforts to introduce sweet sorghum to Greek Agriculture.
CRES. English.
[7] Alfani F., Baldelli C., Bartolelli V., Pignatelli V., Polito P. 2000. Biodiesel prospects as a biofuel for
urban areas: the Italian experience in the frame of the "Kyoto Protocol" fulfilment. ITABIA, Working
Group Biodiesel. English.
[8] Almemark M. 1996. LCA-analys av spannmålsbaserad produktion av etanol för bussdrift i jämförelse
med dieseldrift - råvaru- och energiförbrukning samt emissioner till luft och vatten. IVL - Swedish
Environmental Institute. Swedish.
[9] Amaducci S., Benati R., Venturi G. 1998. Comparison of 4 annual fibre crops (hemp, kenaf, sorghum
and maize) in different environments of Northern Italy. Universitá di Bologna, Universitá di Milano.
English.
[10] Ansø N. 2000. Notat vedrørende emissioner fra forbrændingsmotorer, planteolie sammenlignet med
diesel. Folkecenter for vedvarende energi. Danish.
[11] Ansø N. 2002.Der er forskel på planteolie.Folkecenter for vedvarende energi.Danish.
[12] Aracil J., Velasco R., Vicente G., Soriano R., Guijarro M.I., Garcia T., Martinez M. 2000. Study of the
production of diesel fuel derived from used frying oil. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
English.
9

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[13] Arkoudeas P., S. Kalligeros, F. Zannikos, G. Anastopoulos, D. Karonis, D. Korres, E. Lois. 2003. Study
of using JP8 aviation fuel and biodiesel in CI engines. National Technical University of Athens.
English.
[14] Arkoumanis C. 2000. A Technical study on fuels technology related to the Auto-Oil Programe. EC
Directorate General for Energy. English.
[15] Armas O. 2002. Study of capabilites and pollutant emissions from native biodiesel and emulsified
diesel. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. Spanish.
[16] Armstrong A.P. et al. 2002. Energy and greenhouse gas balance of biofuels for Europe - an update.
Concawe, Belgium. English.
[17] Arnäs, Blinge, Bäckströ, Furnander. 1997. LCA av drivmedel - En studie med utgångspunkt från
svenska förhållanden och bästa tillgängliga teknik. Dept. For Transportation & Logistics,
Chalmers University of Technology. Swedish.
[18] Ballesteros I. 2001. Procurement of ethanol from lignocelulosic biomass thorugh SFS process.
CIEMAT. Spanish.
[19] Ballesteros, I., Oliva, J.M., Saez, F., Ballesteros, M. 2001. Ethanol production from lignocellulosic
byproducts of olive oil extraction. CIEMAT. English.
[20] Bao M., Crespo, M.I., Domínguez, M. 2000. Wheat straw pyrolysis biofuels characterization.
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. English.
[21] Beer T., Grant T., Brown R., Edwards J., Nelson P., Watson H., Williams D. 2000. Life-cycle emissions
analyses of alternative fuels for heavy vehicles. CSIRO, RMIT, University of Melbourne. English.
[22] Berna G. 1996. Sweet sorghum. Potenciality of integration with other biomass chains. A case in
Umbria region. Finesport Engineering Srl. English.
[23] Biewinga E.E. 1997. Environmental aspects of biomass production and routes for European energy
supply. EU FP Project AIR3.CT94.2455. English.
[24] Biewinga E.E., van der Bijl G. 1996. Sustainability of energy crops in Europe. A methodology
developed and applied. Centre for Agriculture and Environment, Netherlands. English.
[25] Bjerg J. 2001. Rapsolie til opvarmning. Teknik, økonomi og miljø. Videncenter for halm og flisfyring.
Danish.
[26] Böck N., Kefer K., Streicher W., Zelenka P.1991. Stand der Technik alternativer Antriebssysteme und
ihr Weiterentwicklungspotential. Forschungszentrum Seibersdorf. German.
[27] Boerrigter H. 2003. Green' diesel production with Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Energy research Centre
of the Netherlands. English.
10

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[28] Bona S., Mosca G., Varemali T. 1999. Oil crops for biodiesel production in Italy. Universitá di Padova.
English.
[29] Bona, S., Mosca, G., Vamerali, T. 2000. Energy and CO2 balance in biodiesel production: the role of
variability in agricultural practices. Universitá di Pavoda. English.
[30] Bondioli P. 1996. Standarization in Italy. Italian Working Group Biodiesel. English.
[31] Borken J., Patyk A., Reinhardt G. 1999. Basisdaten für ökologische Bilanzierungen - Einsatz von
Nutzfahrzeugen in Transport, Landwirtschaft und Bergbau. IFEU Heidelberg. German.
[32] Bosma W.J.P. et al. 1999. Analysis and evaluation of GAVE chains (GAVE report 9921/9909/9910).
Arthur D. Little International, Novem. English.
[33] Boukis F.1991. Study of ethanol production technologies, utilising Chemo-biological conversion.
CRES. Greek.
[34] Briceño Y. 1998. Traditional crops potential evaluation in Castilla-León to biofuels production.
CIDAUT. Spanish.
[35] Bugge J. 2000. Rapsolie til transport 2. Markedet for rapsolie til energiformål. Folkecenter for
vedvarende energi. Danish.
[36] Bugge J. 2000. Rapsolie til transport 3. Økologisk rapsdyrkning. Folkecenter for vedvarende energi.
Danish.
[37] Bugge J. 2004. Rapsolie til transport 1. Energibalance og CO2 balance. Folkecenter for vedvarende
energi. Danish.
[38] Bullard M., Martin D. et al. 2003. The impacts of creating a domestic UK bioethanol industry.
ADAS consullting Ltd., Ecofys UK, Ecofys bv. English.
[39] Cabela E. (Hrsg.).1983. Energie aus Biomasse - Energiebilanzstudie: Diskussionsbeiträge eines
Expertengespräches. Forschungszentrum Seibersdorf. German.
[40] Cabela E. et al.1982. Energie aus Biomasse - Energiebilanzstudie. Forschungszentrum Seibersdorf.
German.
[41] Cabela E. et al.1987. Regionaler Ölpflanzenbau - Modell einer integrierten Versorgung.
Forschungszentrum Seibersdorf. German.
[42] Calzoni J., Caspersen N., Dercas N., Gaillard G., Gosse G., Hanegraaf M., Heinzer L., Junk N.,
Kool A., Korsuize G., M. Lechner, B. Leviel, R. Neumayr, A. M. Nielsen, P. H. Nielsen, A.
Nikolaou, C. Panoutsou, A. Panvini, A. Patyk, J. Rathbauer, G. A. Rein. 2000. Bioenergy for
Europe: Which one fit best? - A comparative analysis for the Community. IEFEU, BLT, CLM,
CRES, CTI, FAL, FAT, INRA, TUD. English.
11

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[43] Camps M., Marcos F. 2002. Biocombustibles. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Spanish.
[44] Canavate J.O. ( ).Application of biologically derived products as fuels or additives in combustion
engines.EU FP Project .English.
[45] Casalini, F., Pascuzzi, S, Ferrante, A., Ressa, G. 2000. A study about the emissions produced by the
combustion of biodiesel and of biodiesel-fossil diesel mixtures. Politecnico di Bari, Universitá di Bari.
Italian.
[46] Caserta G., Bartolelli V., Mutinati G. 1995. Herbaceous energy crops. A general survey and a
microeconomic analysis. ENEA. English.
[47] Celsius materialteknik. 1994. RME och diesel Mk1. Celsius materialteknik AB. Swedish.
[48] Choudhury R., R. Wurster, J. Schindler, M. Miller, N. Brinkman, A. Armstrong, D. Rckead, G.
Jersey, M. Kerby, H. Khehgi, J. Robbins, J. Cadu, D. Lew Breton. 2002. GM well-to-wheel analyses
of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of advanced fuel/vehicle systems - a European study.
L-B-Systemtechnik, GM, BP, TotalFinaElf, Shell, ExxonMobile. English.
[49] Christakopoulos P., Koullas D.P., Kekos D., Koukios E.G., Macris B.J. 1991. Direct conversion of
straw to ethanol by Fusarium oxysporum: Effect of cellulose crystallinity. NTUA. English.
[50] Christakopoulos P., Koullas D.P., Kekos D., Koukios E.G., Macris B.J. 1991. Direct ethanol conversion
of pretreated straw by Fusarium oxysporum. NTUA. English.
[51] Christakopoulos P., Li Lian-Wu, Kehos D., Macris B.J. 1993. Direct conversion of sorghum
carbohydrates to ethanol by a mixed microbial culture. NTUA. English.
[52] Christakopoulos P., Macris B.J., Kekos D. 1989. Direct fermentation of cellulose to ethanol by
Fusarium oxysporum. NTUA. English.
[53] Christensen B.H. 2003. IBUS concept. Sicco.
[54] Christensen R., Sorenson S.C, Jensen M.G., Hansen K.F. 1997. Engine Operation on Dimethyl Ether in
a Naturally Aspirated DI Diesel Engine. SAE Transactions - Journal of Engines, Paper 971665.
English.
[55] Cima F. 1994. Industrial strategies. Development outlook for ETBE. Ecofuel SpA. English.
[56] Ciria, M.P., Esteban, L.S., Fernández, J.E., Carrasco, J.E. 2002. Behaviour of Brassica carinata stored
outdoors. CIEMAT. English.
[57] Coll R., Marquevich M., Salvadó J., Montané D. 2000. Steam reforming of biomass gassification tars
using model compounds. Universida Rovira i Virgili. English.
[58] Contadini J.F. 2002. Life cycle assessment of fuel cell vehicles - dealing with uncertainties. English.
12

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[59] Cortés J.G. 2000. Renewable Energies: the agriculture, biofuels producer. Junta de Extremadura.
Spanish.
[60] Cosentino S.L. 1996. Crop physiology of sweet sorghum (Shorgum bicolor (L.) Moench) in relation to
water and nitrogen stress. Universitá di Catania. English.
[61] CRES.( ). STRIDE HELLAS 289. An integrated and innovative R&D approach exploring the potential
of biofuel production in Greece from renewable biomass resources. Final Report.CRES.English.
[62] Cuna D., Ricci E., Alfani F., Cantarella M., Dèrcole L., Gallifuoco A., Spera A., Zimbardi F., Viggiano
D. 1998. Ethanol bioproduction from steam exploded waste paper. ENEA, Universitá dell'Aquila.
English.
[63] Curt M.D., Fernández J., Olalla L., Gonzalez J. 1996. Summary of 5 years varietal experimentation on
sweet sorghum in Spain. ETSI Agrónomos-UPM, Centro de Investigaciones y Desarrollo de
Andalucia, Servicio de Investigación Agraria de Extremadura. English.
[64] Curt, M.D., Fernández, J. 2002. Effect of Sweet shorgum crop on soil carbon. Universidad Politécnica
de Madrid. English.
[65] Curt, M.D., Fernández, J., González, J., Gil, J.L. 2000. Comparative growth analysis of two sorghum
cultivars in Badajoz. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Servicio de Investigación y Desarrollo
Tecnológico. English.
[66] Curt, M.D., Sánchez, G., Fernández, J. 2002. The potential of Cynara cardunculus L. for seed oil
production in a perennial cultivation system. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. English.
[67] Dalianis C. 2000. Brassica carinata: the outset of a new crop for biomass and industrial non-food oil.
CRES. English.
[68] Dalianis C., Christou M., Sooter C., Kyritsis S.1992. Effect of Irrigation and Nitrogen Fertilization
Rates on Growth and Productivity of Sweet Sorghum. Agricultural University of Athens. English.
[69] Dalianis C., Christou M., Sooter Ch., Kyritsis S.1992. Growth and Productivity of Sweet Sorghum
in Greece. Agricultural University of Athens. English.
[70] Dalianis C., Christou M., Sooter Ch., Kyritsis S., Zafiris C., Samiotakis G. 1992. Effect of irrigation and
nitrogen fertilization rates on growth and productivity of sweet sorghum. CRES. English.
[71] Dalianis C.D., Christou M., Sooter CH., Kyritsis S., Zafiris CΗ., Samiotakis G. 1994. Growth and
Productivity of sweet sorghum in Greece. CRES. English.
[72] Danish Energy Authority. 2001. Omkostninger ved CO2 reduktion for udvalgte tiltag (appendix).
Danish Energy Authority. Danish.
13

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[73] Danish Energy Authority. 2001. Omkostninger ved CO2 reduktion for udvalgte tiltag (report).
Danish Energy Authority. Danish.
[74] Danner H., H. Christensen, J. Lukas, H. Schrader. 2001. Co-Production of Electricity and Ethanol
from Biomass. EU FP JOULE III, JOR3-CT97-7049. English.
[75] Dansk Jordbrugsforskning.( ).…Studies about growing of biomass.Dansk
Jordbrugsforskning.Danish.
[76] de Boo W. 1993. Environmental and energy aspects of liquid biofuels.Centrum voor energiebesparing
en schone technologie, Netherlands. English.
[77] de Feber M.A.P.C., Gielen D.J. 2000. Biomass for greenhouse gas emission reduction; Task 7: energy
technology characterisation. Energy research Centre of the Netherlands. English.
[78] de Nocker L., Spirinckx C., Torfs R. 1998. Comparison of LCA and external-cost analysis for
biodiesel and diesel.VITO, Belgium. English.
[79] De Vita, A., Alaggio, M. 2000. Effects of biodiesel on performance, emissions, injection and
combustion characteristics of a diesel engine. Universitá di L'Aquila. English.
[80] Delucchi M. 1997. Emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases from the production and use of
transportation fuels and electricity. English.
[81] Delucchi, M., Burke, A., Lipman, T. and Miller, M. 2000. Electric and gasoline vehicle lifecycle cost
and energy-use model. English.
[82] Delucchi M. 2002. Overview of the lifecycle emsissions model. English.
[83] Delucchi M. 2003. A Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM): Lifecycle Emissions from Transportation
Fuels, Motor Vehicles, Transportation Modes, Electricity Use, Heating and Cooking Fuels, and
Materials (Documentation of Methods and Data). University of California, Institute of
Transportation of Studies. English.
[84] den Uil H. et al. 2003. Conventional bio-transportation fuels. Energy research Centre of the
Netherlands. English.
[85] Dercas N., Panoutsou C., Dalianis C. 1996. Radiation use efficiency, water and nitrogen effects in
sweet’s sorghum productivity. CRES. English.
[86] Derkas N., Dalianis C., Panoutsou K., Sooter C.H. 1994. Sweet sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L)
Moench] Response to four irrigation and two Nitrogen Fertilization Rates. CRES. English.
[87] Diamantidis N.D., Koukios E.G. 1998. Biomass for greenhouse gas emission reduction-agriculture as
a source of biomass n Western Europe. NTUA. English.
14

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[88] Diamantidis N.D., Koukios E.G. 2000. Agricultural crops and residues as feedstocks for non-food
products in Western europe. NTUA. English.
[89] Dinkel F., Real M. 1998. Treibstoffe aus Biomasse. Arbeitsgemeinschaft alpha real AG, Carbotech AG.
German.
[90] Dorado M.P., Gil A., Gómez J., Arnal J.M, López F.J., Lizaur A., Mellado J.A., Chico J.C. 2000. A longterm
performance of a public coach using sunflower oil methyl ester. Universidad de Jaén, Junta de
Andalucía, Universidad de Córdoba. English.
[91] Dorado M.P., Gil A., Gómez J., Arnal J.M, López F.J., Lizaur A., Mellado J.A., Chico J.C. 2000. Diesel
engine performance using several biofuels. Universidad de Jaén, Junta de Andalucía, Universidad de
Córdoba. English.
[92] Dorado M.P., Gil A., Mellado J.A., Ballesteros E., Gómez J., Arnal J.M., López J.F., Lizaur A., Chico
J.C. 2000. Waste and non-used oil as two alternatives to diesel fuel. Universidad de Jaen, CIFA,
Universidad de Córdoba. English.
[93] Dreier T. ( ).Ganzheitliche Systemanalyse und Potential biogener Kraftstoffe.Technical University
Munich, Lehrstuhl für Energiewirtschaft und Anwendungstechnik. German.
[94] Dreier T. 1999. Biogene Kraftstoffe: Energetische, ökologische und ökonomische Analyse. TU
München, Lehrstuhl für Energiewirtschaft u. Kraftwerkstechnik. German.
[95] Dreier T., Tzscheutschler P. 2000. Ganzheitliche Systemanalyse für die Erzeugung und
Anwendung von Biodiesel und Naturdiesel im Verkehrssektor. Technical University Munich,
Lehrstuhl für Energiewirtschaft und Anwendungstechnik. German.
[96] Duarte M.P., Fernando A., Alves L., Amparo V., Silva S., Guimaraes H., Oliveira J.S. 1998.
Characterization of sorghum potential as an industrial and energy feedstock. The influence of crop
mamagement. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. English.
[97] Duarte P., Fernando A., Oliveira J.F.S. 1996. Analysis of correlation between productivity and
biochemical parameters of the sweet sorghum crop in Portugal. Universidade Nova de Lisboa.
English.
[98] Duarte, M.P., Fernando, A.L., Guimaraes, H., Amparo, V., Alves, L., Santos, J.F. 2000. Study of sweet
and fibre sorghum crops in Portugal. Effect of climatic conditions and sowing date on the final
productivity and on the quality of the biomass. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. English.
[99] EC. 1996. European Energy to 2020. European Commision. English.
[100] EC. 2001. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the
economic and social committee and the committe of the regions on alternatvie fuels for road
15

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
transportation and on a set of measures to promote the use of biofuels. European Commision.
English.
[101] Ecobilan. 1996. Sugarbeet ETBE Ecobalance. ECOBILAN. French.
[102] Ecobilan. 2000. Up-dating of rapeseed methyl ester LCA. Ecobilan, Onidol. French.
[103] Ecobilan. 2002. Energy and greenhouse gases balances of biofuels’ production chains in France.
ECOBILAN (PriceWaterHouseCooper). French.
[104] Ecotec. 2000. Emissions from liquid biofuels. Ecotec Research and Consulting, UK. English.
[105] Ecotec. 2001. Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Assessment of RME. Ecotec Research and Consulting, UK.
English.
[106] Edwards R., J.C. Griesemann, J.F. Larivé, V. Mathieu. 2003. Well-to-wheel analysis of future
automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context (Version 1, November 2003). JRC/IES,
Renault, CONCAWE, EUCAR. English.
[107] Elbersen H.V., Chistian D.G., Bacher W., Alexopoulu E., Pignatelli V., van der Berg D. 2000.
Swtichgrass variety choice in Europe. ATO, IACR, FAL, CRES, ENEA, BTG. English.
[108] Elsayed M.A., R. Matthews, N.D. Mortimer. 2003. Carbon and energy balances for a range of
biofuels options. Resources Research Unit, Sheffield Hallam University, study as part of DTI
Sustainable Energy Programmes, UK. English.
[109] Enguídanos, M., Soria, A., Kavalov, B, Jensen, P. 2002. Techno-economic analyis of Bio-alcohol
production in the EU: a short summary for decision makers. IPTS-European Commission. English.
[110] Enguídanos, M., Soria, A., Kavalov, B, Jensen, P. 2002. Techno-economic analyis of Bio-diesel
production in the EU: a short summary for decision makers. IPTS-European Commission. English.
[111] EPA. 2002. A comprehensive analysis of biodiesel impacts on exhaust emissions - Draft Technical
Report. EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. English.
[112] Ericson M., Odéhn G. 1999. A life-cycle assessment on Ethanol fuel from whine. Chalmers University
of Technology. English.
[113] Etxebarria G., Monte M. 1996. Comparative monitoring of 100% biofuel-fired bus and diesel bus in
the city of Vitoria. Ente Vasco de la Energía (EVE), Vitoria-Gasteiz City Council. English.
[114] EU. ( ). ‘Sweet sorghum’: A sustainable crop for energy production in Europe: Agriculture, industrial
improvement, optimization and implementation. Final Report. EU FP, AIR-CT92-0041.English.
[115] EU. ( ). BIOCAT: catalysis development for catalytic biomass flash pyrolisis producing promising
liquid biofuels. CERTH/CPERI, SINTEF, KTH, GRACE, BTG, KWI, ARI. English.
[116] EU. ( ). Sweet sorghum productivity network. Final Report. EU FP, JOUB-0036.English.
16

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[117] EU. 1991. Techno-economical evaluation of bioethanol prospects in Europe.EU FP JOULE 1,
JOUB0085. English.
[118] EU. 1991. Utilisation des huiles vegetales et leur derives en tant que carburant diesel. EU FP AIR,
Project reference AIDA0006. French.
[119] EU. 1993. Decentralised production of bioethanol from sweet sorghum experimental evaluation of
the technical and economical feasibility. Development of the ethanol-farm concept within the sweet
sorghum European network. EU FP JOULE 1, JOUB0057. English.
[120] EU. 1993. High Temperature ethanol fermentation of lignocellulosic wastes. EU FP Project
AGRE.0063. English.
[121] EU. 1995. Installation of a production plant for 60000 T/P biodiesel (methyl ester) from rapeseed oil in
Leer (Germany). EU FP THERMIE 1, Project reference BM./00446/93. English.
[122] EU. 1997. Pilot actions aimed at introducing liquid fuels derived from biomass in place of petroleum
products in the transport sector. EU FP ALTENER, Project reference XVII/4.1030/95-103. English.
[123] EU. 1999. Environmental studies on sweet and fiber sorghum sustainable crops for biomass and
energy. EU FP Project FAIR-CT96-1913. English.
[124] EU. 2000. Bioethanol as fuel for fuel cell vehicles and small scale stationary power production. EU FP
JOULE JOR3-CT97-0174. English.
[125] EU. 2001. Biomass and waste conversion in supercritical water for the production of renewable
hydrogen. EU FP ENK6-2001-00555. English.
[126] EU. 2002. Biomass in Mediterranean. EU FP ALTENER 2, Project Reference 4.1030/C/00-
022/2000.English.
[127] EU. 2003. Large Bioethanol/ETBE Integrated project in China and Italy. EU FP ENK6-2000-80130.
English.
[128] Fatsikostas A.N., D.I. Kontarides, X. E. Verykios. 2002. Production of hydrogen for fuel cells by
reformation of biomass derived ethanol. University of Patras. English.
[129] Fernandes J.F., Ferreira-Dias S. 2000. Production of biodiesel from crude and refined olive residue oil.
Escola Superior Agrária de Santarem, Instituto Superior de Agronomia.English.
[130] Férnandez J. 1998. Energy crops in Castilla-León. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Spanish.
[131] Fernández, J., Curt, M.D., Martinez, M. 2000. Balance between stalk sugar and tuber sugar
production of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.). Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.
English.
17

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[132] Fernando, A.L., Duarte, M.P., Santos, J.F. 2000. Some aspects of environmental impact assessment of
sweet and fibre sorghum crops un Southern of Portugal. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. English.
[133] Ferreira-Dias S., Borges S.A., Lourenço E.V. 2000. Response surface modelling and optimization of
the production of biodiesel from crude rapesees oil. Instituto Superior de Agronomia. English.
[134] Finnveden G., Lindfors L.G., Stripple H.1994. Livscykelanalys av etanol ur sorterat hushållsavfall
med starksyrahydrolys. IVL - Swedish Environmental Institute. Swedish.
[135] Fock M.W., Christiansen H.F. 2000. Drivhusgasemission ved tilvejebringelse af fossile brændsler og
biomassebaserede brændsler til energiformål. Danish Energy Authority. Danish.
[136] Fock M.W., Christiansen H.F. 2002. Life cycle assesment of procurement and conversion of biomass
and fossil fuels - used for energy production in denmark 1997. Danish Energy Authority. English.
[137] Frederiksen J.M. 1999. Livscyklus vurdering af bioethanol, rapsolie-methylester og diesel til brug
som brændstof i busser. DTU. Danish.
[138] Freire F., Malca J., Rozakis S. 2002. Integrated economic and environmental life cycle
optimization: an application to biofuel production in France. INRA. English.
[139] Friedrich A. et al. 1993. Ökologische Bilanz von Rapsöl bzw. Rapsölmethylester als Ersatz von
Dieselkraftstoff (Ökobilanz Rapsöl). Umweltbundesamt Deutschland. German.
[140] Friedt W. et al. 1992. Stellungnahmen der externen Sachverständigen zu: Ökologische Bilanz von
Rapsöl bzw. Rapsölmethylester als Ersatz von Dieselkraftstoff (Ökobilanz Rapsöl).
Umweltbundesamt Deutschland. German.
[141] Fulton L. 2000. Fuel Economy Improvement - Policies and measures to save oil and reduce CO2
emissions. IEA.English.
[142] Furnander A. 1996. Life cycle assessment of dimethyl ether as a motor fuel. Chalmers University of
Technology. English.
[143] Gartmeister L. 2000. Livscykelinventering (LCI) för bensin och bensin med 5 % etanolinblandning.
University of Linköping. Swedish.
[144] Gärtner S.O., Reinhardt A. 2003. Life Cycle Asessment of Biodiesel: Update and New Aspects.
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH (IFEU, Germany). English.
[145] General Motors’ Global Alternative Propulsion Center. 2001. Weel-to-Wheel energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions of advanced fuel/vehicule systems – North American Analysis. General
Motors’ Corporation. English.
18

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[146] Gianellos P.N., F. Zannikos, S. Stournas, E. Lois, G. Anastopoulos. 2002. Tobacco seed oil as an
alternative diesel fuel: physical and chemical properties. National Technical University of
Atehns.English.
[147] Gil A., Vazquez A., Haro A., Gomez J., Gálvez M., Barasona M.L., López F.J. 1996. Cultivation
experiences of Brassica carinata and Brassica napus to produce oil as biofuel in Cordoba. The
possibilities of Sinapsis alba for production of oil and for its employemnt as biofuel. Centro de
Investigación y Desarrollo Agrario. Universidad de Córdoba, CSIC. English.
[148] Gimaldi, C.N., Mariani, F., Postrioti, L. 2001. Performance and emissions of a common rail ID diesel
engine ussing fossil and diferent bio-derived-fuels. Universitá di Perugia. English.
[149] Gimaldi, C.N., Postrioti, L., Battistoni, M. 2002. Common rail HSDI disesl engine combustion and
emissions with fossil/bio-derived fuel blends. Universitá di Perugia, Politecnico di Torino. English.
[150] Glensvig M., Sorenson S.C., Abata D. 1996. High Pressure Injection of Dimethyl Ether. In Alternative
Fuels, Vol 27-3, ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division. English.
[151] Gonçalves, H., Joyce, A., Silva, L. 2002. Forum Renewable Energies in Portugal. A contribution to
define energetic and environmental policy objectives. ADENE, INETI. Portuguese.
[152] González J., Gil. J.L., Pérez F. 2000. Productivity of sweet and fiber sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.)
Moench) in the southwest of Spain. Junta de Extremadura. English.
[153] Gordon K. 2002. Biodiesel i Danmark.Emmelev mølle. Danish.
[154] Gordon K. 2002. Rapport om den samfundsøkonomiske stilling for BIODIESEL.Emmelev mølle.
Danish.
[155] Gountani A.K., D. K. Lygouras, K. E. Verykios. 2003. Hydrogen production for Fuel-cells, utilising
bio-ethanol from biomass feedstock.University of Patras. Greek.
[156] Grass S., Heim T. 1991. Ökologische Risikoanalyse und Wirtschaftlichkeitsberechnungen der
landwirtschaftlichen Rapsmethylester-Produktion sowie zweier alternativer Anbauszenarien.
Carbotech AG. German.
[157] Gylling M. 2001. Energiafgrødeprogrammet. Statens Jordbrugs og Fiskeri økonomiske Institut.
Danish.
[158] Haas R., Berger M., Kranzl L. 2001. Energieszenarien bis 2020. Technical University Vienna, Institut
für elektrische Anlagen. German.
[159] Haas R., Berger M., Kranzl L. 2001. Strategien für erneuerbare Energieträger - Strategien zur weiteren
Forcierung erneuerbarer Energieträger in Österreich unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des EU-
Weißbuches für erneuerbare Energien und der Campain for Take-off. Technical University Vienna,
Institut für elektrische Anlagen. German.
19

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[160] Hamelinck C.N., A.P.C. Faaij, H. den Uil, H. Boerrigter. 2003. Production of FT transportation
fuels from biomass; technical options, process analysis and optimisation, and development
potential. University of Utrecht, Netherlands. English.
[161] Hamelinck C.N., G. van Hooijdonk, A. Faaij. 2003. Prospects for ethanol from lignocellulosic
biomass: techno-economic performance as development progresses. University of Utrecht, The
Netherlands. English.
[162] Hanegraaf M.C., Biewinga E.E., van der Bijl G. 1998. Assessing the ecological and economic
sustainability of energy crops. Centre for Agriculture and Environment, Netherlands. English.
[163] Heinzer L., G. Gaillard, D. Dux, C. Stettler. 2000. Ökologische und ökonomische Bewertung von
Bioenergieträgern. FAT - Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt von Stückholzheizung, Rapsmethylester
und Fernwärme aus Heu. German.
[164] Hemmes K., A. de Groot, H. den Uil. 2003. Bio-H2: Application potential of biomass related
hydrogen production technologies to the Dutch energy infrastructure of 2020-2050. Energy
research Centre of the Netherlands. English.
[165] Iconomou L., Psarianos C., Koutinas A. 1995. Ethanol fermentation promoted by delignified
cellulosic material. University of Patras. English.
[166] IDAE. 1998. Promotion Plan of Renewable Energy Sources (PPRES). Biomass: Costs/benefits analysis.
IDAE. Spanish.
[167] IDAE. 1999. Promotion Plan of Renewable Energy Sources (PPRES). Ministry of Science and
Technology. Spanish.
[168] IDAE. 2000. Biomass in Spain meeting. Business opportunities and market possibilities. Ministry of
Science and Technology. Spanish.
[169] IEA. 1999. Automotive Fuels for the Future. IEA/AFIS. English.
[170] INFRAS. 1998. Ökoprofile von Treibstoffen. INFRAS for BUWAL. German.
[171] ITCF. 1998. Ligno-cellulosic and herbaceous crop for non food applications. ITCF. French.
[172] Jensen P. 2003. Short note on Pure Plant Oil (PPO) as fuel for modified internal combustion engines.
Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. English.
[173] Jørgensen K. 1996. Analyse af brintdrift i det danske energisystem. BYG, DTU. Danish.
[174] Jørgensen K. 1998. Alternative drivmidler og bæredygtig udvikling : el-, hybrid- og brintdrift i
Danmark. BYG, DTU. Danish.
20

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[175] Jungmeier G., S. Hausberger, L. Canella. 2003. Treibhausgas-Emisionen und Kosten von
Transportsystemen (Greenhouse gas emissions and costs of transportation systems).JOANNEUM
RESEARCH. German.
[176] Kadam K.L., Camobreco V.J., Glazebrook B.E., Forrest L.H., Jacobson W.A., Simeroth D.C.,
Blackburn W.J., Nehoda K.C. 1999. Environmental life cycle implications of fuel oxygenate
production from California biomass. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Ecobalance, TSS
Consultants, California Air Resource Board, California Energy Commission, California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. English.
[177] Kadam K.L., Camobreco V.J., Glazebrook B.E., Forrest L.H., Jacobson W.A., Simeroth D.C., Blackburn
W.J., Nehoda K.C. 1999. Environmental Life Cycle implications of using bagasse-derived ethanol as a
gasoline oxygenate in Bombay. National Renewable Laboratory. English.
[178] Kaddouri, A, Modica, G., Tempesti, E, Mazzocchia, C. 2002. Bioethanol steam reforming for
hydrogen production over SiO2 or Al2O3 supported metal catalyst. Politecnico di Milano. English.
[179] Kalligeros S., F. Zannikos, S. Stournas, E. Lois, G. Anastopoulos, C. Teas, N. Liapis, J. Courouklis.
2001. Application of using biodiesel in Greece for the reduction of atmospheric pollution. NTUA.
English.
[180] Kalligeros S., F. Zannikos, S. Stournas, E. Lois, G. Anastopoulos, C. Teas, F. Sakellaropoulos. 2003. An
investigation of using biodiesel/marine diesel blends on the performance of a stationary diesel
engine. National Technical University of Athens. English.
[181] Kaltschmitt M., Reinhard G. 1997. Nachwachsende Energieträger - Grundlagen, Verfahren,
ökologische Bilanzierung. IFEU Heidelberg und Universität Stuttgart. German.
[182] Kampman B.E. et al. 2003. Biomassa: tanken of stoken? Een vergelijking van inzet van biomassa in
transportbrandstoffen of elektriciteitscentrales tot 2010. CE Oplossingen voor milieu, economie en
technologie, The Netherlands. Dutch.
[183] Kavadakis, G., D. Diakoulaki. 2001. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Biodiesel in Greece. CRES. English.
[184] Kavalov B. et al. 2003. Biofuel production potential of EU-candidate countries. Joint Research
Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. English.
[185] Knoflacher M., Tuschl P., Schneeberger W. 1991. Ökonomische und ökologische Bewertung von
alternativen Treibstoffen (Endbericht und Diskussionsbeiträge der Präsentation). Forschungszentrum
Seibersdorf. German.
[186] Koukios E., Ekonomides D., Toleris E., Kekos D., Taoukis P. 1982. Fuel ethanol from agricultural byproducts.
NTUA. Greek.
21

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[187] Koukios E., Ekonomides D., Tsoutsos T., Chatzoudis G., Kekos D. 1985. Ethanol production from
agricultural by-products in immobilised microorganism columns. NTUA. Greek.
[188] Koukios E., Ekonomides D., Tsoutsos T., Kekos D. 1985. Ethanol production from agricultural byproducts,
wholistic techno-economic approach. NTUA. Greek.
[189] Koukios E.G. 1977. Agricultural by-products as an energy source. NTUA. Greek.
[190] Koullas D.P., Obasi L., Dong C., Mamma D., Kekos D., Macris B.J., Aneke L.E., Zheng C., Koukios
E.G. 1998. Bioethanol production from the utilisation of agricultural residues of developing
countries. NTUA. English.
[191] Koullas D.P., Umealu O.S., Koukios E.G. 1999. Solvent selection for the extraction of ethanol from
aqueous solutions. NTUA. English.
[192] Koutinas A.A., Yianoulis P., Gravalos K. 1981. A model for industrial production of fuel grade
ethanol from sugar beets. University of Patras. English.
[193] Koutinas A.A., Yianoulis P., Gravalos K., Koliopoulos K. 1981. A processing scheme for industrial
ethanol production from straw. University of Patras. English.
[194] Kraus K., Niklas G., Tappe M. 1999. Aktuelle Bewertung des Einsatzes von Rapsöl/RME im
Vergleich zu Dieselkraftstoff. Umweltbundesamt Deutschland. German.
[195] Kristensen N.B. et al. 1997. EMBIO (Energistyrelsens Model til økonomomis og miljømæssig vurderi
ng af BIObrændstoffer). COWI. Danish.
[196] Küpers G.R. et al. 2002. Climate neutral transport fuels from biomass; the BIG-FiT concept.
Samenwerkingsverband Duurzame Energie, Netherlands. English.
[197] Kyritsis S. 1995. Utilisation of vegetable oils and their derivates as diesel fuel. Agricultutal University
of Athens. English.
[198] Kyritsis S. 1999. Feasibility study on biofuel chains implementation in a mediterranean country.
Agricultutal University of Athens. English.
[199] Kyritsis S. 2000. Biofuels in the Transport Sector. Agricultural University of Athens. English.
[200] Lapuerta, M., Armas, O., Ballesteros, R. 2002. Diesel particulate emissions from biofuels derived
from Spanish vegetable oils. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. English.
[201] Lapuerta, M., Armas, O., Hernández, J.J. Ballesteros, R. 2002. Biofuels to diesel engines. Universidad
de Castilla-La Mancha. English.
[202] Lechón Y., Cabal H., Sáez R. 2000. Environmental externalities of the implementation of the
Spanish Biomass National Plan regarding the use of biofuels in transport. CIEMAT. English.
22

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[203] Levelton Engineering Ltd. in association with (S&T)2 Consultants Inc. 1999. Assessment of Net
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from Ethanol-Blended Gasolies in Canada: Lignocellulosic
Feedstocks. English.
[204] Lezinou V., Christakopoulos P., Kekos D., Macris B.J. 1993. Fed-batch fermentation of sweet sorghum
carbohydrates to ethanol by a mixed culture. NTUA. English.
[205] Lezinou V., Christakopoulos P., Kekos D., Macris B.J. 1993. On the mechanism of direct
bioconversion of sweet sorghum carbohydrates to ethanol: Effect of cellulolytic enzymes. NTUA.
English.
[206] Lezinou V., Christakopoulos P., Li Lian-Wu, Kekos D., Macris B.J. 1992. Certain factors affecting
direct bio-conversion of sorghum carbohydrates to ethanol. NTUA. English.
[207] Liguras D.K., D. I. Kontarides, E. Verykios. 2003. Production of hydrogen for fuel cells by steam
reforming of ethanol over supported noble metal catalyst. University of Patras. English.
[208] Lizaur A., Gil A., Arnal J.M., Mellado J.A., Chico J.C., Dorado M.P. 2000. Brassica carinata, Cynara
cardunculus and Sinapsis alba as three energetic crops. CIFA, Universidad de Córdoba. English.
[209] Löfvenberg U. 2002. E-diesel: Demonstration Test in Denmark. Akso Nobel Surce Chemistry.
English.
[210] Löhrlein, H.P., Raigón, M.D. 2000. Biofuel from used cooking oil for the public transport of Valencia.
University of Kassel, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. English.
[211] López-Silva, A.B., Moreira, M.T., López-Facal, X., Feijoo, G. 2002. Proceso fabricacion del etanol (I).
Universidad Santiago de Compostela. Spanish.
[212] López-Silva, A.B., Moreira, M.T., López-Facal, X., Feijoo, G. 2002. Proceso fabricacion del etanol (II).
Universidad Santiago de Compostela. Spanish.
[213] López-Silva, A.B., Moreira, M.T., López-Facal, X., Feijoo, G. 2002. Proceso fabricacion del etanol
(III). Universidad Santiago de Compostela. Spanish.
[214] Luger E., Rathbauer J., Wörgetter M., Blumauer E. 1996. European Energy Crops Overview:
Landesbericht von Österreich. BLT - Bundesanstalt für Landtechnik. German.
[215] Lygeros A.I. 1980. Ethanol as gasoline substitute. Potential in Greek reality. NTUA. Greek.
[216] Lygouras D.K., S. S. Voutetakis. 2003. Design and construction of a pilot plant for hydrogen
production from bioethanol. University of Patras, Chemical Process Engineering Research Institute.
Greek.
[217] Macris B.J., Christakopoulos P., Kekos D., Koullas D., Koukios E. 1988. Direct bioconversion of
pretreated wheat straw to ethanol. NTUA. English.
23

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[218] MAF. 2000. Koldpresset rapsolie og RapsMethyl Ester (RME) som alternativt brændstof. ITD
(International Transport Danmark). Danish.
[219] Mamma D., Christakopoulos P., Kekos D., Macris B.J. 1997. Sweet Sorghum: A Potential Feedstock
for Fuel Bioethanol Production. NTUA. English.
[220] Mamma D., Christakopoulos P., Koullas D., Kekos D., Macris B.J., Koukios E.G. 1994. An alternative
approach to the bioconversion of sweet sorghum carbohydrates to ethanol. NTUA. English.
[221] Mamma D., Koullas D., Fountoukidis G., Kekos D., Macris B.J., Koukios E. 1994. Direct conversion of
sorghum carbohydrates to ethanol in bioreactors by a mixed microbial culture. NTUA. English.
[222] Mamma D., Koullas D., Fountoukidis G., Kekos D., Macris B.J., Koukios E.G. 1995. Bioethanol from
Sweet Sorghum: Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of carbohydrates by a mixed
microbial culture. NTUA. English.
[223] Marquevich M., Coll R., Montané D. 2000. Hydrogen production by team reforming of sunflower
oil.Universida Rovira i Virgili. English.
[224] Mastrorilli M., Katerji N., Rana G. 1996. Evaluation of the risk derived from introducing sweet
sorghum in Mediterranean zone. Istituto Sperimentale Agronomico, INRA. English.
[225] Mavrotas G., Rozakis S. 2001. A mixed 0-1 MOLP approach for the planning of biofuel production.
INRA. English.
[226] McAloon A., Taylor F., Yee W., Ibsen K., Wooley R. 2000. Determing the cost of producing ethanol
from corn starch and lignocellulosic feedstocks. National Renewable Energy Laboratorium.
English.
[227] Mehlin M. et al. 2003. Renewable Fuels for Cross Border Transportation. German Aerospace
Center (Institute of Transport Research), Institute of Energy and Environment, University of
Stuttgart (Department of Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering). English.
[228] Mikkelsen S.E., Hansen J.B., Sorenson S.C. 1996. Progress with Dimethyl Ether. Presented at the
International Alternative Fuels Conference, Milwauke, WI, USA. English.
[229] Mikkelsen S-E., Sorenson S.C., Hansen J.B. 1996. Dimethyl Ether as an Alternate Fuel for Diesel
Engines. Application of Powertrain and Fuel Technologies to Meet Emissions Standards, Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, London. English.
[230] Ministry Economy. 2002. Estudio sobre el uso de los biocarburantes. Working Group Report.
Ministry of Economy. Spanish.
[231] Ministry of Transport. 2000. Begrænsning af transportsektorens CO2-udslip. Muligheder og
virkemidler. Ministry of transport. Danish.
24

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[232] Mitsios M., N. Barakos, N. Papagiannakos. 2003. Enzymatic methanolysis of the cotton oil
triglycerides for biodiesel production. NTUA. Greek.
[233] Monier V., Lanneree B. 2000. Bioethanol in France and Spain. IEA. English.
[234] Monteleone M., Gherbin P. 1998. Simulation model to assess the potential and water-limited biomass
productivity of kenaf and paper sorghum in a Mediterranean environment. Universitá degli Studi
della Basilicata. English.
[235] Mortensen B. 1997. Livscyklusvurdering af bioethanol anvendt ved kørsel med personbiler og
bybusser i Danmark. IPU, DTU. Danish.
[236] Mortimer N.D., P. Cormack, M. A. Elsayed, R. E. Horne. 2003. Evaluation of the comparative
energy, global warming and socio-economic costs and benefits of Biodiesel. Resources Research
Unit, Sheffield Hallam University. English.
[237] Muñoz M., Moreno F., González A., Morea-Roy J.F. 1996. Research and utilization of biofuels.
Universidad de Zaragoza. Spanish.
[238] Nardi A. 1996. Production of bioethanol from sweet sorghum fermentation and ethanol production.
Gea Engeneering SpA. English.
[239] Neubarth J., Kaltschmitt M. 2000. Erneuerbare Energie in Österreich - Systemtechnik, Potentziale,
Wirtschaftlichkiet, Umweltaspekte. University Stuttgart. German.
[240] Nicholaou A. 1999. Sweet sorghum, a promising annual crop for Greece. CRES. English.
[241] Nikolaoy, A., Kavadakis, G. and C. Panoutsou. 2003. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of
Bioenergy and Fossil Energy Systems in Greece. CRES. English.
[242] Nilsson M. 2000. LCI för biogas som fordonsbränsle - en systemstudie. University of Kalmar.
Swedish.
[243] Olsson L., H. Jørgensen, K. B. R. Krogh, C Roca. 2004. Bioethanol production from lignocellulosic
material. Center for Process Biotechology, DTU, DK. English.
[244] Olsson L., Hahn-Hägerdal B. 1996. Fermentation of lignocellulisic hydrolysates for ethanol
production. Applied Microbiology, University of Lund. English.
[245] Paller F., E. Blumauer , W. Etlz, J. Gerstmayr, F. Forstner, F. Hunger, M. Leisser, A. Liebhard-Wallner,
H. Lindner, L. Ritter, W. Scherr, J. Binder, H. Janetschek. 2000. Standarddeckungsbeiträge und Daten
für die Betriebsberatung. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Wasserwirtschaft und
Umwelt (Ausgabe West- u. Ostösterreich). German.
[246] Panoutsou C. 1998. Energy potential of agricultural residues in EU. CRES. English.
25

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[247] Panoutsou C., Alexopoulou E. 1999. Economic analysis of production of the three most promising
energy crops in Greece. CRES. English.
[248] Panoutsou C., Alexopoulou E. 1999. Promising annual energy crops in Greece. CRES. English.
[249] Panoutsou C., Alexopoulou E. 1999. State of the art of the energy crops in Greece- Scenarios for the
potential contribution of energy crops in Greece in 2010. CRES. English.
[250] Panoutsou C., Dalianis C. 1996. Cost evaluation of energy crops at farm gate in different EU countries
and related agricultural issues. Development of a standard methodology for integrating non-food
crop production in rural areas with niche energy markets. CRES. English.
[251] Panoutsou C., Nicholaou A., Alexopoulou E. 1999. Economic comparison between costs of energy
crops and cost of biomass residues and fossil fuels. CRES. English.
[252] Pari L. 1996. Harvesting, storage and logistic of sweet sorghum. Istituto sperimentale per la
Meccanizzaziones Agricola. English.
[253] Pari L. 2000. A demonstrative project for bio-energy production at farm level. Istituto Sperimentale
per la Meccanizzazione Agricola. English.
[254] Pari L., Ragno E. 1998. Biomass crop energy balance. ISMA. English.
[255] Passarinho P.C., Oliveira A.C., Pingarilho M.S., Beriao S.G., Vieira A.S., Rosa M.F. 1998. Biodiesel
production by chemical or enzimatic esterification of sunflower oil. ITE. English.
[256] Pehnt M. 2002. Assessing future energy and transport systems: the case of Fuel Cells. IFEU.
English/German.
[257] Pelkmans L., Christidis P. et al. 2003. Trends in vehicle and fuel technologies: Review of past
trends; Trends in vehicle and fuel technologies: Overview of current research activities; Trends in
vehicle and fuel technologies: Scenarios for future trends. European Science and Technology
Observatory. English.
[258] Quinet E. 1994. Internalising the social costs of transport, Chapter 2 - The social costs of transport -
Evaluation and links with internalisation policies. OECD/ECMT. English.
[259] Reinhardt G. 2001. Ökologischer Vergleich von RME und Rapsöl. IFEU Institute Heidelberg. German.
[260] Reinhardt G.A. 1993. Energie- und CO²-Bilanzierung - Bilanzierung nachwachsender Rohstoffe. IFEU
Heidelberg. German.
[261] Reinhardt G.A. 1999. Ressourcen- und Emissionsbilanzen: Rapsöl und RME im Vergleich zu
Dieselkraftstoff. IFEU Heidelberg. German.
[262] Reinhardt G.A., Zemanek G. 1999. Ökobilanz Bioenergieträger - Basisdaten, Ergebnisse,
Bewertungen. IFEU Heidelberg. German.
26

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[263] Reith J.H. et al. 2002. Co-production of bio-ethanol, electricity and heat from biomass residues.
Energy research Centre of the Netherlands. English.
[264] Ribas-Fernandes, J., Ferreira-Dias, S., Pereira, P. 2002. The effects of free fatty acid content of crude
olive residue oil on interesterification kinetics with methanol. Escola Superior Agrária de Santarem,
Instituto Superior de Agronomia. English.
[265] Richards I.R. 2000. Energy balances in the growth of oilseed rape for biodiesel and of wheat for
bioethanol. Ecotec Research and Consulting, UK. English.
[266] Riva G., Calzoni J., Panvini A. 1999. Rapporto sul biodiesel 1999. Committato Termotecnico Italiano.
Italian.
[267] Riva, G., Calzoni, J., Panvini, A. 2002. Reduction of the environmental impact of diesel motors.
Comitato Termotecnico Italiano. Italian.
[268] Riva, G., Calzoni, J., Panvini, A. 2003. Biodiesel report 1999. EUBIONET. Italian.
[269] Rocco, V., Prati, M.V., Senatore, E., Cerri, E., Benfenati, M. 2003. Fuelling a small diesel engine by
using gas-oil and RME: comparative results and particulate characterisation. EUBIONET. English.
[270] Röder A. 2001. Life-cycle inventory and costs of different car powertrains. Paul Scherrer Institute
(PSI). English.
[271] Rozakis S. 1998. Regional agricultural modelling and multi-criteria evaluation of Biomass-to-energy
chains: The case of sweet sorghum to ethanol in Greece. INRA. English.
[272] Rozakis S. 2000. Alternative energy policies for viable development. INRA. Greek.
[273] Rozakis S., Sourie J.C. 2001. Comprehensive modelling of bio-energy systems.. INRA. English.
[274] Rozakis S., J.C. Sourie. 2002. Micro-economic modelling of the biofuel chain system in France. INRA.
English.
[275] Rozakis S., Sourie J.C. 2001. Micro-economic modelling of biofuel chain system in France. UMR
Econmis publique, INRA. English.
[276] Rozakis S., Sourie J.C., Vanderpooten D. 2002. Determining efficient biofuel tax exemption policy in
France for greenhouse gas emission abtement. INRA. English.
[277] Sakellaropoulos F., E. Lois, S. Stournas, F. Zanikos, S. Kalligeros, G. Anastopoulos. 2001. Biodiesel
utilisation and its effect on the exhaust emission and engine lubricants. National Technical University
of Athens. Greek.
[278] Salgado A., Poitrat E, Neto F., Vermeersch G., Pereira H., Madelon J., Moura J., Rocha J., Barroso J.L.,
Fernandes M., Rosa M.F., Kyritsis S. 1999. BIOPOR: feasibility study on biodiesel chains
implementation in a Mediterranean country. English.
27

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[279] Samolada M.C., Baldauf W., Vasalos I.A. 1998. Production of a bio-gasoline by upgrading biomass
flash pyrolysis liquids via hydrogen processing and catalytic cracking. Chemical Process Engineering
Research Institute. English.
[280] Sánchez S., Castro E., Ruiz, E., Moya, A.J., Martínez. L., Bravo, V., Camacho, F. 2000. Fermentation of
hydrolysates from sunflower debris using Pachysolen tannophilus. Universidad de Jaén,
Universidad de Granada. English.
[281] Sánchez S., Moya A.J., Castro Bravo V., Camacho F. 2000. Hydrolysis with trifluoracetic acid of
debris frrom olive pruning and fermentation of hydrolysates with Pachysolen tannophilus.
Universidad de Jaén. English.
[282] Schaller W., H. Bayer, E. Dreer, A. Jonas, G. Jungmeier, M. Lauer, P. Liebhard, M. Pogoreutz, W.
Pröll, B. Reetz, A. Schmidt, F. Schneider, J. Spitzer. 2001. Nachhaltige Bioenergiestrategie für
Österreich. Austrian Power Association. German.
[283] Scharmer K. 2001. Biodiesel Energie- und Umweltbilanz Rapsölmethylester. GET. German.
[284] Schmitz N. et al. 2003. Bioethanol in Deutschland - Verwendung von Ethanol und Methanol aus
nachwachsenden Rohstoffen im chemisch-technischen und im Kraftstoffsektor unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung von Agraralkohol. Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und
Landwirtschaft. German.
[285] Schöpe M., Britschkat G. 2002. Gesamtwirtschaftliche Bewertung des Rapsanbaus zur
Biodieselproduktion in Deutschland. Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung. German.
[286] Schramm J. 1996. Alternative Fuels for Vehicles. MEK, DTU. Danish.
[287] Schramm J. 2003. Novozymes (enzyms to ethanol production). MEK, DTU.English
[288] Schramm J., Gratz L., Foldager I., Olsen S. 1999. Emissions from a Diesel Vehicle Operated on
Alternative Fuels in Copenhagen. MEK, DTU. English.
[289] Schramm, J.1994. Utilization of Alcohols as Fuels for Vehicles. MEK, DTU. Danish.
[290] Serdari A., Fragioudakis K., Kalligeros S., Stournas S., Lois E. 2000. Impact of using biodiesels of
differnet origin and additives on the performance of a stationary engine. NTUA. English.
[291] Serdari A., Lois E., Stournas S. 2000. Tertiary fatty amides as diesel fuel substitutes. NTUA. English.
[292] Shapouri H., Duffield J.A., Wang M. 2002. The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update. US
Department of Agriculture (USDA). English.
[293] Sheehan J. et al. 1998. An Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles. DOE. English.
[294] Sheehan J. et al. 1998. Life cycle inventory of biodiesel and petroleum diesel for use in an urban bus.
DOE. English.
28

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[295] Sheehan J., Aden A., Riley C., Lightle D., Walsh M., Cushman J., Paustian K., Killian K., Brenner
J., Nelson R. 2002. Is ethanol from corn stover sustainable? A life cycle assessment of the
production of ethanol from corn stover for use in a flexible fuel vehicle. National Renewable
Laboratory Natural Resources Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture - Natural
Resources Ecology Laboratory - Kansas State University - Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
English.
[296] Sheehan J., Camobreco V., Duffield J., Graboski M., Shapouri H. 1998. An overview of biodiesel
and petrolium diesel life cycles. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. English.
[297] Sheehan J., Camobreco V., Duffield J., Graboski M., Shapouri H. 1998. Life cycle inventory of
biodiesel and petrolium diesel for use in an urban bus. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
English.
[298] Silvestrini G. 2002. Policies to enlarge the use of biomass in Italy. Ministry of Environment. English.
[299] Simonsen B., Gordon K. 2001. Samfundsøkonomiske beregninger over Biodiesel som alternativ til
fossil dieselolie. Emmelev mølle. Danish.
[300] Sivebæk I.M., Sorenson S.C. 2000. Dimethyl Ether (DME) – Assessment of Lubricity Using the
Medium Frequency Pressurised Reciprocating Rig Version 2 (MFPRR2).” SAE Paper 2000-01-2970,
Presented at SAE Fuels & Lubricants Conference in Baltimore, 16-19 October 2000. English.
[301] Sivebæk I.M., Sorenson S.C. 2000. Dimethyl Ether (DME) and Other Low Boiling Point Fuels –
Assessment of Lubricity Using The New Medium Frequency Pressurised Reciprocating Rig
(MFPRR). Presented at the 9th Nordic Symposium on Tribology – NORDTRIB 2000. English.
[302] Sivebaek, I.M., Sorenson S. C. 2001. Assessment of Lubricity Properties of Dimethyl Ether Using the
Medium Frequency Reciprocating Rig. Proceedings of the 3rd International Colloquium “Fuels” pp.
309-315. Esslingen, Germany, Jan. 2001. English.
[303] Sivebaek, I.M., Sorenson S. C., Jakobsen J. 2001. Dimethyl Ether (DME) – Assessment of Viscosity
Using the New Volatile Fuel Viscometer (VFVM). SAE Paper 2001-01-2013. 2001, SAE Transactions –
Journal of Fuels and Lubricants. English.
[304] Sivebaek, I.M., Sorenson S. C., Jakobsen J. 2001. Dimethyl Ether (DME) – Assessment of Viscosity
Using the New Volatile Fuel Viscometer (VFVM). SAE Paper 2001-01-2013. 2001. English.
[305] Soldatos P.G. 2000. Cost analysis of energy plantation. Agricultural University of Athens. English.
[306] Soldatos P.G. 2000. The economics of bioethanol production in Greece. Agricultural University of
Athens. English.
[307] Soldatos P.G. et al. 2000. A multiple criteria decision tool for the integration of energy crops into the
Southern Europe energy system. Agricultural University of Athens. English.
29

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[308] Soldatos P.G. et al. 2000. Study of the technical and economic appraisal of the production and
utilisation of Biofuels in Greece and their potential in urban transport. Agricultural University of
Athens. English.
[309] Soldatos P.G., Chatzidaki M.A. 1999. Economic evaluation of biofuel production in Greece. The case
of ethanol. Agricultutal University of Athens. English.
[310] Sørensen B. 1997. Life-Cycle analysis of energy systems. RUC. English.
[311] Sørensen B. 2000. A hydrogen future for Denmark.RUC. English.
[312] Sørensen B. 2000. Renewable Energy. RUC. English.
[313] Sorenson S.C. 1999. Dimethyl Ether as a fuel for diesel engines. 2nd International Colloquium on
Fuels, Esslingen Germany – Fuels 1999, Technische Akadamie Esslingen, pp 357-362. English.
[314] Sorenson S.C. 2000. Dimethyl Ether in Diesel Engines – Progress and Perspectives, Paper no 2000-
ICE-292, ICE-Vol 34.3, Spring Conference ASME, 2000 April 9-12, 2000 pg. 64-73, . .English
[315] Sorenson S.C. 2001.Dimethyl Ether in Diesel Engines – Progress and Perspectives. Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbine & Power, Vol 123. English.
[316] Sorenson S.C., Glensvig M, Abata D.L. 1998. Dimethyl Ether in Diesel Fuel Injection Systems. SAE
Transactions - Journal of Engines, Paper 981159. English.
[317] Sorenson S.C., Mikkelsen S.E. 1995. Performance and Emissions of a 0.273 Liter Direct Injection Diesel
Engine Fuelled with Neat Dimethyl Ether. SAE Transactions, SAE Paper 950064. English.
[318] Sorenson S.C., Mikkelsen S.E. 1995. Performance and Emissions of a Single Cylinder Direct Injection
Diesel Engine Fuelled with Neat Dimethyl Ether. Japan Energy Technology Information, Vol 43, No.
10. Japanese.
[319] Sourie J.C., Rozakis S. 2000. Analyse economique des fillieres biocarburants a l'aide d'un model
d'equilibre partiel. INRA. French.
[320] Spath P.L., D.C. Dayton. 2003. Preliminary Screening - Technical ans Economic Assessment of
Synthesis Gas to Fuels and Chemicals with Emphasis on the Potential for Biomass-Derived
Syngas. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). English.
[321] Spath P.L., Mann M.K. 2001. Life cylcle assessment of hydrogen production via natural steam
reforming. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. English.
[322] Stelzer T. 1999. Biokrafstoffe im vergleich zu konventionellen kraftstoffen-lebensweg-analysen von
Umweltwirkungen. Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Energiewirtschaft und rationelle
Energieanwendung. German.
[323] Suurs R. 2002. Long distance bioenergy logistics. University Utrecht, Copernicus Institute.English.
30

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[324] S&T 2 Consultants Inc. 2000. Liquid fuels from biomass: North America. Impact of non-technical
barriers on implementation. English.
[325] S&T 2 Consultants Inc. and Meyers Norris Penny. 2001. An evaluation of an expanded ethanol
industry. English.
[326] Teas C., S. Kalligeros, F. Zannikos, S. Stournas, E. Lois, G. Anastopoulos, N. Liapis.2001. Pilot scale
applicaton of biodiesel utilisation in Greece. National Technical University of Athens. Greek.
[327] Thomsen A.B., M. Torry-Smith, F. Haagensen, B. Ahring.2001. Bio Refinery - Production of Ethanol
and biogas. RISØ and DTU. English.
[328] Tinaut F., Briceño, Y., Castaño, V., Vegas, L. 2000. Optimizing of biodiesel production process from
waste frying oil. Universidad de Valladolid. English.
[329] Tinaut F.V., Castaño V. 1998.A pplication of liquid biofuels in engines. CIDAUT. Spanish.
[330] Tinaut, F.V., Castaño, V. 2003. Emissions from the application of liquid biofuels in engines. CIDAUT.
English.
[331] Tinaut, F.V., Castaño, V., Briceño, Y, Laura, M. 2003. Emissions from waste frying oil biodiesel.
CIDAUT. English.
[332] Tsoutsos T. 1990. Experimental and techno-economic evaluation of systems exploiting cellulosic
materials for ethanol production. NTUA. Greek.
[333] Tsoutsos T.D., Umealu O.S., Koukios E.G. 1989. Potential of biomass in Greece: Present situation and
proposed management. NTUA. English.
[334] Tsoutsos T.D., Doudakmani O., Tournaki S., Koukios E.G. 1990. Study of the ethanol sector: The
production system of bioethanol. NTUA. Greek.
[335] Uppenberg S., Almemark M., Brandel M. et al. 2001. Miljöfaktabok för bränslen. IVL - Swedish
Environmental Institute. Swedish.
[336] van den Brink R.M.M. 2003. Scenario's voor duurzame energie in verkeer en vervoer; beoordeling op
verschillende criteria voor duurzaamheid. RIVM, the Netherlands. Dutch.
[337] van den Broek R. 2000. Sustainability of biomass electricity systems. University of Utrecht,
Netherlands. English.
[338] van den Broek R. et al. 2003. Biofuels in the Dutch market: a fact-finding study. Ecofys BV, The
Netherlands. English.
[339] van der Drift A., van Doorn J. 2001. Biovase; Een concept voor de verwerking van GFT tot groen gas,
ethanol en electriciteit. Energy research Centre of the Netherlands. Dutch.
31

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[340] van Kuik M., van Zeijts H. 1998. Sustainability of bioethanol production from sugar beet and winter
wheat. Centre for Agriculture and Environment, Netherlands. English.
[341] van Thuijl E. 2002. Grootschalige toepassing van biobrandstoffen in wegvoertuigen. Energy research
Centre of the Netherlands. Dutch.
[342] van Thuijl E., C.J. Roos, L.W.M. Beurskens. 2003. An overview of biofuel technologies, markets
and policies in Europe. Energy research Centre of the Netherlands. English.
[343] van Walwijk M., Hagenau J., Schramm J. 1999. Biodegradable Lubricants. MEK, DTU. English.
[344] van Zeijts H., Oosterveld E.B., Timmerman E.A.1994. Kan de landbouw schone energie leveren?.
Centre for Agriculture and Environment, Netherlands. Dutch.
[345] van Zessen E. et al. 2003. (Ligno)cellulosic-ethanol; a second opinion. Energy research Centre of
the Netherlands. English.
[346] Vayenas C.G. 2003. Production of Clean Hydrogen for fuel cells by reformation of Bioethanol.
University of Patras.English.
[347] Venendaal R., Jorgensen U., Foster C.A. 1997. European energy crops: A synthesis. BTG, University
of Twente. English.
[348] Vicente G., Gómez A.B., Martinez M., Aracil J. 2000. Raw materials for biodiesel production in Spain.
Universidad Complutense de Madrid. English.
[349] Villarías, J.L., Garzón, E., García, J.R. 2002. Sugar beet. A new modality of profitable ecological crop.
Universidad de León. Spanish.
[350] Vis M. 2002. Beschikbaarheid van reststromen uit de voedings- en genotmiddelenindustrie voor
energieproductie. BTG, Novem, The Netherlands. Dutch.
[351] Wallace J.P. et al. 2001. MGM Study: Well-to-Wheel Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emission of
Advanced Fuel/Vehicle Systems - North America Analysis. Argonne National Laboratory
Transportation Technology R & D Center, GM, BP, Shell, ExxonMobile. English.
[352] Wang M. 1999. Effects of fuel ethanol use on fuel-cycle energy and green-house emissions. US
Department of Energy (Office of technology utilization, Office of transportation technolohgies).
English.
[353] Wang M., Saricks C., Santini D. 1999. Effects of fuel ethanol use on fuel-cycle energy and
greenhouse gas emissions. Argonne National Laboratory Transportation Technology R & D
Center. English.
[354] Wang M., Sarlicks C., Wu M. 1997. Fuel Cycle Fossil Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
of Fuel Ethanol Produced from U.S. Midwest Corn. English.
32

VIEWLS-WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
[355] Wang M.Q. 1999. GREET 1.5 - Transportation fuel-cycle model.Argonne National Laboratory
Transportation Technology R & D Center. English.
[356] Weiss M.A, Heywood J.B, Drake E.M., Schafer A., AuYeung F.F. 2000. On the road in 2020 - a lifecycle
analyses of new automotive technologies. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
English.
[357] Winter K. 2003. Dokumentation for beregning af CO2 reduktionsomkostningen ved anvendelse af
biodiesel. Danish Energy Authority. Danish.
[358] Wooley R., Ruth M., Sheehan J., Ibsen K., Majdeski H., Galvez A. 1999. Lignocellulosic biomass to
ethanol process design and economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and enzymatic
hydrolysis current and futuristic scenarios. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Biotehcnology
Center for Fuels and Chemicals, Delta-T Corporation. English.
[359] Zaldivar J., Nielsen J., Olson L. 2001. Fuel ethanol production from lignocellulose: a challenge for
metablolic engineering and process integration. Center for Process Biotechology, DTU, DK. English.
[360] Zanikos F., S. Kalligeros, S. Stournas, G. Karavalakis, E. Lois, G. Anastopoulos, D. Karonis. 2003.
Feedstock estimation for biodiesel production in Greece. National Technical University of Athens.
Greek
[361] Zimbardi F., Ricci E., Viola E., Cuna D., Cardinale G., Cardinale M. 2000. Process optimization in
bioconversion of lignocellulosics into ethanol. ENEA. English.
[362] Zimbardi F., Viola E., Gallifuoco A., De Bari I., Cantarella M., Barisano D., Braccio G. 2000. Overview
of the bioethanol production. ENEA, Universitá di Làquila. English.
33

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 2
CURRENCY CONVERSION
PROCEDURE
35

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
A currency conversion table was constructed in order to homogenize all economic values that were gathered
in selected studies to EURO 2002 values. This has been done and incorporated as a separate sheet in the
Detailed Data Sheet through the creation of six different tables, being the last one the most relevant for the
purpose of homogenizing economic values.
In order to normalize economic values of different currencies and several years a double calculation was
carried out: first, the conversion of national currencies of the involved countries (EU-15 plus USA and
Canada) to ECU/EURO; and second, the updating of these conversion rates of the different years to the year
2002 by using the cumulated inflation rate.
The first two tables (Table A2-1 and Table A2-2) summarize the conversion rate of every year both from
ECU/EURO to national currencies and from national currencies to ECU/EURO. The annual conversion rate of
each currency represents the average value of 365 days for every year.
Table A2-1. Exchange rate of 1 ECU/EURO 1 . Values in national currencies (*)
COUNTRY Currency 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Austria schilling 14.4745 14.4488 14.2151 13.6098 13.5108 13.0373 13.2605 13.7853 13.8860 13.7603 13.7603 13.7603 13.7603
Belgium franc 42.5380 41.9309 41.5853 40.4240 39.5774 38.1259 38.7959 40.4379 40.7334 40.3399 40.3399 40.3399 40.3399
Denmark krone 7.8762 7.9159 7.8071 7.5851 7.5271 7.2482 7.2642 7.4655 7.5189 7.4401 7.4590 7.4566 7.4341
Finland markka 4.8693 5.0128 5.7979 6.6999 6.1851 5.6485 5.7561 5.8691 5.9990 5.9457 5.9457 5.9457 5.9457
France franc 6.9298 6.9818 6.8448 6.6250 6.5677 6.4531 6.4079 6.5954 6.6173 6.5596 6.5596 6.5596 6.5596
Germany mark 2.0562 2.0524 2.0186 1.9337 1.9196 1.8523 1.8846 1.9587 1.9732 1.9558 1.9558 1.9558 1.9558
Greece drachma 202.1128 225.5416 246.8083 268.1127 287.4872 299.8565 301.5381 308.6294 331.7184 340.7500 340.7500 340.7500 340.7500
Ireland punt 0.7698 0.7690 0.7607 0.7989 0.7925 0.8072 0.7832 0.7462 0.7884 0.7876 0.7876 0.7876 0.7876
Italy lira 1525.1876 1535.2107 1592.9508 1839.1492 1910.2031 2109.2889 1933.3519 1924.9339 1948.5405 1936.2700 1936.2700 1936.2700 1936.2700
Luxembourg franc nd nd nd nd nd 37.0794 38.5506 39.7687 41.2398 40.3399 40.3399 40.3399 40.3399
Netherlands guilder 2.3175 2.3136 2.2742 2.1728 2.1536 2.0756 2.1121 2.2053 2.2250 2.2037 2.2037 2.2037 2.2037
Portugal escudo 181.4954 178.9151 174.6663 188.0509 196.5365 194.0043 193.2322 198.0926 202.2355 200.4820 200.4820 200.4820 200.4820
Spain peseta 129.7526 128.6405 132.3877 148.8589 158.6008 161.2923 158.6803 165.5067 167.6009 166.3860 166.3860 166.3860 166.3860
Sweden krona 7.5398 7.4885 7.5305 9.1094 9.1454 9.2371 8.4053 8.6343 8.9323 8.8139 8.4501 9.2524 9.1629
UK pound 0.7161 0.7022 0.7365 0.7795 0.7742 0.8200 0.8029 0.6909 0.6779 0.6595 0.6099 0.6223 0.6289
USA dollar 1.2763 1.2416 1.2959 1.1704 1.1858 1.2941 1.2527 1.1317 1.1233 1.0668 0.9249 0.8965 0.9459
Canada dollar 1.4890 1.4234 1.5657 1.5093 1.6204 1.7760 1.7083 1.5669 1.6682 1.5856 1.3726 1.3886 1.4847
(*) Average 365 days, Interbank rate (http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory).
(1) ECU until 1998, EURO from 1999.
nd = no data available
Table A2-2. Exchange rate of 1 national currencies to ECU/EURO
COUNTRY Currency 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Austria schilling 0.0691 0.0692 0.0703 0.0735 0.0740 0.0767 0.0754 0.0725 0.0720 0.0727 0.0727 0.0727 0.0727
Belgium franc 0.0235 0.0238 0.0240 0.0247 0.0253 0.0262 0.0258 0.0247 0.0245 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248
Denmark krone 0.1270 0.1263 0.1281 0.1318 0.1329 0.1380 0.1377 0.1340 0.1330 0.1344 0.1341 0.1341 0.1345
Finland markka 0.2054 0.1995 0.1725 0.1493 0.1617 0.1770 0.1737 0.1704 0.1667 0.1682 0.1682 0.1682 0.1682
France franc 0.1443 0.1432 0.1461 0.1509 0.1523 0.1550 0.1561 0.1516 0.1511 0.1524 0.1524 0.1524 0.1524
Germany mark 0.4863 0.4872 0.4954 0.5171 0.5209 0.5399 0.5306 0.5105 0.5068 0.5113 0.5113 0.5113 0.5113
Greece drachma 0.0049 0.0044 0.0041 0.0037 0.0035 0.0033 0.0033 0.0032 0.0030 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029
Ireland punt 1.2991 1.3005 1.3146 1.2518 1.2618 1.2389 1.2769 1.3401 1.2684 1.2697 1.2697 1.2697 1.2697
Italy lira 0.0007 0.0007 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005
Luxembourg franc nd nd nd nd nd 0.0270 0.0259 0.0251 0.0242 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248
Netherlands guilder 0.4315 0.4322 0.4397 0.4602 0.4643 0.4818 0.4735 0.4535 0.4494 0.4538 0.4538 0.4538 0.4538
Portugal escudo 0.0055 0.0056 0.0057 0.0053 0.0051 0.0052 0.0052 0.0050 0.0049 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050
Spain peseta 0.0077 0.0078 0.0076 0.0067 0.0063 0.0062 0.0063 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060
Sweden krona 0.1326 0.1335 0.1328 0.1098 0.1093 0.1083 0.1190 0.1158 0.1120 0.1135 0.1183 0.1081 0.1091
UK pound 1.3965 1.4242 1.3577 1.2829 1.2917 1.2196 1.2455 1.4475 1.4751 1.5163 1.6397 1.6070 1.5902
USA dollar 0.7835 0.8054 0.7717 0.8544 0.8433 0.7727 0.7983 0.8836 0.8902 0.9374 1.0812 1.1154 1.0572
Canada dollar 0.6716 0.7025 0.6387 0.6626 0.6171 0.5631 0.5854 0.6382 0.5995 0.6307 0.7286 0.7201 0.6736
37

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
Table A2-3 presents the annual inflation rate 1 in each country considered and for every year from 1990 to 2002,
and Table A2-4 displays the index numbers for inflation rate for the assessed period (1990=100).
Table A2-3. Annual inflation rate by country
COUNTRY 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Austria 1,2,3 3.3 3.3 4.1 3.6 3.0 2.2 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.5 2.0 2.3 1.7
Belgium 1,2,3 3.4 3.2 2.4 2.8 2.4 1.5 1.8 1.5 0.9 1.1 2.7 2.4 1.6
Denmark 1,2,3 2.6 2.4 2.1 1.3 2.0 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.3 2.1 2.7 2.3 2.4
Finland 1,2,3 6.1 4.3 2.9 2.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.3 3.0 2.7 2.0
France 1,2,3 3.4 3.2 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.8 2.1 1.3 0.7 0.6 1.8 1.8 1.9
Germany 1,2,3 2.7 3.6 5.1 4.5 2.7 1.8 1.2 1.5 0.6 0.6 1.4 1.9 1.3
Greece 1,2,3 20.4 19.5 15.9 14.4 10.9 8.9 7.9 5.4 4.5 2.1 2.9 3.7 3.9
Ireland 1,2,3 3.3 3.2 3.1 1.4 2.3 2.6 2.2 1.2 2.2 2.5 5.2 4.0 4.7
Italy 1,2,3 6.1 6.5 5.3 4.2 3.9 5.2 4.0 1.9 2.0 1.7 2.6 2.3 2.6
Luxembourg 1,2,3 3.7 3.1 3.2 3.6 2.2 1.9 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.0 3.8 2.4 2.1
Netherlands 1,2,3 2.5 3.2 3.2 2.6 2.8 1.9 1.4 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.3 5.1 3.9
Portugal 1,2,3 13.4 10.2 9.4 6.7 5.4 4.1 2.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.8 4.4 3.7
Spain 1,2,3 6.7 5.9 5.9 4.7 4.7 4.7 3.6 1.9 1.8 2.2 3.5 2.8 3.6
Sweden 1,2,3 10.4 9.7 2.6 4.7 2.4 2.5 0.8 1.8 1.0 0.6 1.3 2.7 2.0
UK 1,2,3 9.5 5.9 3.7 1.6 2.5 3.4 2.5 1.8 1.6 1.3 0.8 1.2 1.3
US 1,2,3 5.4 4.2 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.3 1.6 2.2 3.4 2.8 1.6
Canada 4 6.3 1.5 1.9 0.4 2.2 1.5 2.0 0.9 1.0 3.0 2.5 1.8 4.3
(1) Source: From 1990 to 1995, The Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
(2) Source: From 1996 to 2000 the 'Eurostat Yearbook 2002'.
(3) Source: For 2001 and 2002 the 'Harmonized Indices of Consumer Prices' of EUROSTAT
(4) Source: Statistics Canada (http://www.statcan.ca) 'Consumer Price Indexes for Canada, 1914-2003'.
Table A2-4. Index numbers of inflation rate (1990=100)
COUNTRY 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Austria 100 103.3 107.4 111.0 114.0 116.2 118.0 119.2 120.0 120.5 122.5 124.8 126.5
Belgium 100 103.2 105.6 108.4 110.8 112.3 114.1 115.6 116.5 117.6 120.3 122.7 124.3
Denmark 100 102.4 104.5 105.8 107.8 109.9 112.0 113.9 115.2 117.3 120.0 122.3 124.7
Finland 100 104.3 107.2 109.4 110.5 111.5 112.6 113.8 115.2 116.5 119.5 122.2 124.2
France 100 103.2 105.6 107.7 109.4 111.2 113.3 114.6 115.3 115.9 117.7 119.5 121.4
Germany 100 103.6 108.7 113.2 115.9 117.7 118.9 120.4 121.0 121.6 123.0 124.9 126.2
Greece 100 119.5 135.4 149.8 160.7 169.6 177.5 182.9 187.4 189.5 192.4 196.1 200.0
Ireland 100 103.2 106.3 107.7 110.0 112.6 114.8 116.0 118.2 120.7 125.9 129.9 134.6
Italy 100 106.5 111.8 116.0 119.9 125.1 129.1 131.0 133.0 134.7 137.3 139.6 142.2
Luxembourg 100 103.1 106.3 109.9 112.1 114.0 115.2 116.6 117.6 118.6 122.4 124.8 126.9
Netherlands 100 103.2 106.4 109.0 111.8 113.7 115.1 117.0 118.8 120.8 123.1 128.2 132.1
Portugal 100 110.2 119.6 126.3 131.7 135.8 138.7 140.6 142.8 145.0 147.8 152.2 155.9
Spain 100 105.9 111.8 116.5 121.2 125.9 129.5 131.4 133.2 135.4 138.9 141.7 145.3
Sweden 100 109.7 112.3 117.0 119.4 121.9 122.7 124.5 125.5 126.1 127.4 130.1 132.1
UK 100 105.9 109.6 111.2 113.7 117.1 119.6 121.4 123.0 124.3 125.1 126.3 127.6
USA 100 104.2 107.2 110.2 112.8 115.6 118.5 120.8 122.4 124.6 128.0 130.8 132.4
Canada 100 101.5 103.4 103.8 106.0 107.5 109.5 110.4 111.4 114.4 116.9 118.7 123.0
1
It has been used the consumer price index as the indicator for inflation rate, even though the industrial price index should
be more adequate, due to the availability of this kind of information for every
38

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
The next step was the calculation of the updating rates to year 2002 for the economic values in each country
for each year of the studied period (1990-2002). This was done in Table A2-5. Finally, in Table A2-6 it has been
calculated the updating rates to EURO 2002 considering both the effect of inflation and the exchange rate of
every currency.
Table A2-5. Updating rates to 2002 considering the effect of inflation
COUNTRY 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Austria 1.265 1.232 1.191 1.155 1.125 1.103 1.085 1.073 1.065 1.060 1.040 1.017 1.000
Belgium 1.243 1.211 1.187 1.159 1.135 1.120 1.102 1.087 1.078 1.067 1.040 1.016 1.000
Denmark 1.247 1.223 1.202 1.189 1.169 1.148 1.127 1.108 1.095 1.074 1.047 1.024 1.000
Finland 1.242 1.199 1.170 1.148 1.137 1.127 1.116 1.104 1.090 1.077 1.047 1.020 1.000
France 1.214 1.182 1.158 1.137 1.120 1.102 1.081 1.068 1.061 1.055 1.037 1.019 1.000
Germany 1.262 1.226 1.175 1.130 1.103 1.085 1.073 1.058 1.052 1.046 1.032 1.013 1.000
Greece 2.000 1.805 1.646 1.502 1.393 1.304 1.225 1.171 1.126 1.105 1.076 1.039 1.000
Ireland 1.346 1.314 1.283 1.269 1.246 1.220 1.198 1.186 1.164 1.139 1.087 1.047 1.000
Italy 1.422 1.357 1.304 1.262 1.223 1.171 1.131 1.112 1.092 1.075 1.049 1.026 1.000
Luxembourg 1.269 1.238 1.206 1.170 1.148 1.129 1.117 1.103 1.093 1.083 1.045 1.021 1.000
Netherlands 1.321 1.289 1.257 1.231 1.203 1.184 1.170 1.151 1.133 1.113 1.090 1.039 1.000
Portugal 1.559 1.457 1.363 1.296 1.242 1.201 1.172 1.153 1.131 1.109 1.081 1.037 1.000
Spain 1.453 1.394 1.335 1.288 1.241 1.194 1.158 1.139 1.121 1.099 1.064 1.036 1.000
Sweden 1.321 1.224 1.198 1.151 1.127 1.102 1.094 1.076 1.066 1.060 1.047 1.020 1.000
UK 1.276 1.217 1.180 1.164 1.139 1.105 1.080 1.062 1.046 1.033 1.025 1.013 1.000
USA 1.324 1.282 1.252 1.222 1.196 1.168 1.139 1.116 1.100 1.078 1.044 1.016 1.000
Canada 1.230 1.215 1.196 1.192 1.170 1.156 1.136 1.127 1.116 1.086 1.062 1.043 1.000
Table A2-6 Updating rates to 2002 considering both the effect of inflation and exchange
rate
COUNTRY Currency 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Austria schilling 0.0874 0.0853 0.0838 0.0849 0.0833 0.0846 0.0818 0.0778 0.0767 0.0770 0.0756 0.0739 0.0727
Belgium franc 0.0292 0.0289 0.0285 0.0287 0.0287 0.0294 0.0284 0.0269 0.0265 0.0265 0.0258 0.0252 0.0248
Denmark krone 0.1583 0.1545 0.1540 0.1568 0.1553 0.1584 0.1551 0.1484 0.1456 0.1444 0.1404 0.1373 0.1345
Finland markka 0.2551 0.2392 0.2018 0.1713 0.1838 0.1995 0.1939 0.1881 0.1817 0.1811 0.1761 0.1716 0.1682
France franc 0.1752 0.1693 0.1692 0.1716 0.1705 0.1708 0.1687 0.1619 0.1603 0.1608 0.1581 0.1553 0.1524
Germany mark 0.6138 0.5973 0.5821 0.5844 0.5746 0.5858 0.5694 0.5402 0.5331 0.5348 0.5277 0.5179 0.5113
Greece drachma 0.0099 0.0080 0.0067 0.0056 0.0048 0.0043 0.0041 0.0038 0.0034 0.0032 0.0032 0.0030 0.0029
Ireland punt 1.7486 1.7088 1.6867 1.5885 1.5722 1.5115 1.5297 1.5893 1.4764 1.4462 1.3801 1.3294 1.2697
Italy lira 0.0009 0.0009 0.0008 0.0007 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005
Luxembourg franc nd nd nd nd nd 0.0304 0.0290 0.0277 0.0265 0.0268 0.0259 0.0253 0.0248
Netherlands guilder 0.5700 0.5572 0.5527 0.5666 0.5586 0.5704 0.5540 0.5219 0.5092 0.5051 0.4946 0.4715 0.4538
Portugal escudo 0.0086 0.0081 0.0078 0.0069 0.0063 0.0062 0.0061 0.0058 0.0056 0.0055 0.0054 0.0052 0.0050
Spain peseta 0.0112 0.0108 0.0101 0.0087 0.0078 0.0074 0.0073 0.0069 0.0067 0.0066 0.0064 0.0062 0.0060
Sweden krona 0.1752 0.1635 0.1591 0.1264 0.1232 0.1193 0.1302 0.1246 0.1193 0.1203 0.1239 0.1102 0.1091
UK pound 1.7819 1.7332 1.6021 1.4932 1.4713 1.3476 1.3451 1.5372 1.5430 1.5664 1.6807 1.6279 1.5902
USA dollar 1.0374 1.0326 0.9662 1.0441 1.0086 0.9026 0.9093 0.9861 0.9792 1.0105 1.1287 1.1333 1.0572
Canada dollar 0.8263 0.8536 0.7638 0.7897 0.7221 0.6507 0.6649 0.7189 0.6692 0.6851 0.7734 0.7513 0.6736
39

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 3
BIOETHANOL FACT SHEET
41

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
42

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
43

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
44

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
45

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
46

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
47

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
48

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
Study 71
(EU)
Study 67
(A)
Study 71
(EU)
Study 67
(A)
Study 71
(EU)
Study 71
(EU)
lignocellulosic crops
sugar crops
sugar crops
starch crops
starch crops
lignocellulosic residues
lignocellulosic crops (1)
BIOETHANOL CO 2 -eq. emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
47
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
140
sugar crops (2)
VIEWLS
starch crops (2)
200
lignocellulosic residues (1)
39
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
BIOETHANOL CO 2 -eq. emissions for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study
67 (A)
lignocellulosic crops
Study
71 (EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study
35
(other)
sugar crops
Study
67 (A)
sugar crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study
71 (EU)
sugar crops
Study
35
(other)
starch crops
Study
67 (A)
starch crops
Study
71 (EU)
starch crops
Study
71 (EU)
lignocellulosic residues
lignocellulosic crops (2)
40
VIEWLS
sugar crops (3)
starch crops (3)
lignocellulosic residues (1)
32
75
110
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the
VIEWLS reference results. Reference values are given for 2
significant digits.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
49

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIOETHANOL CO 2 emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study
9
(EU)
Study
24
(D)
Study
15
(NL)
Study
9
(EU)
Study
67
(A)
Study
13
(D)
Study
24
(D)
Study
9
(EU)
Study
67
(A)
Study
24
(D)
Study
15
(NL)
lignocellulosic crops
lignocellulosic crops
lignocellulosic crops
sugar crops
sugar crops
sugar crops
sugar crops
starch crops
starch crops
starch crops
starch crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study
7
(CH)
VIEWLS
lignocellulosic residues
lignocellulosic crops (3)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for
sugar crops (4)
the VIEWLS reference results. Reference values are
given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not
starch crops (4)
practical.
lignocellulosic residues (1)
47
110
120
n.a.
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
BIOETHANOL CO 2 emissions for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 67 (A)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 67 (A)
sugar crops
Study 67 (A)
starch crops
lignocellulosic crops (1)
32
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference results.
Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
32
VIEWLS
sugar crops (1)
50
starch crops (1)
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
50

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIOETHANOL primary energy demand for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 24
(D)
Study 71
(EU)
Study 13
(D)
Study 24
(D)
Study 71
(EU)
Study 24
(D)
Study 71
(EU)
Study 71
(EU)
VIEWLS
lignocellulosic cropsStudy: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
lignocellulosic crops
sugar crops
sugar crops
sugar crops
starch crops
starch crops
lignocellulosic residues
lignocellulosic crops (2)
sugar crops (3)
starch crops (2)
4.8
5.8
5.7
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
lignocellulosic residues (1)
6.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
BIOETHANOL primary energy demand for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 71
(EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 35
(other)
sugar crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 71
(EU)
sugar crops
Study 35
(other)
starch crops
Study 71
(EU)
starch crops
Study 71
(EU)
lignocellulosic residues
lignocellulosic crops (1)
4.9
2.8
VIEWLS
sugar crops (2)
starch crops (2)
2.1
lignocellulosic residues (1)
4.9
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
51

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 4
BIO-ETBE FACT SHEET
53

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
54

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
55

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
56

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
57

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
58

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
59

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
60

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 5
BIOMETHANOL FACT SHEET
61

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
63

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
64

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
65

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
66

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIOMETHANOL CO 2 -eq. emissions for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 35
(other)
Study 67
(A)
Study 71
(EU)
Study 35
(other)
Study 67
(A)
Study 71
(EU)
Study 48
(EU)
Study 68
(D)
VIEWLS
lignocellulosic
Study:
crops
Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
lignocellulosic crops
lignocellulosic crops
lignocellulosic residues
lignocellulosic residues
lignocellulosic residues
lignocellulosic residues
lignocellulosic residues
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
lignocellulosic crops (3)
results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
lignocellulosic residues (5)
-10
49
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
67

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIOMETHANOL CO 2 emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 13 (D)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 24 (D)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 15 (D)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 13 (D)
lignocellulosic residues
36
lignocellulosic crops (3)
VIEWLS
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
n.a.
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
BIOMETHANOL CO 2 emissions for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 67 (A)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 67 (A)
lignocellulosic residues
Study 68 (D)
lignocellulosic residues
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
44
VIEWLS
-57
lignocellulosic residues (2)
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
68

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIOMETHANOL primary energy demand for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 13 (D)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 24 (D)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 13 (D)
lignocellulosic residues
4.1
lignocellulosic crops (2)
VIEWLS
n.a.
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
BIOMETHANOL primary energy demand for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 35
(other)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 71
(EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 35
(other)
lignocellulosic residues
Study 48
(EU)
lignocellulosic residues
Study 68
(D)
lignocellulosic residues
Study 71
(EU)
lignocellulosic residues
lignocellulosic crops (2)
1.9
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
VIEWLS
2.5
lignocellulosic residues (4)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
69

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 6
BIO-MTBE FACT SHEET
71

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
73

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
74

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
75

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
76

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 7
PURE VEGETABLE OIL FACT
SHEET
77

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
79

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
80

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
81

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
PURE VEGETABLE OIL CO 2 -eq. emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 25 (D)
oil seed
100
VIEWLS
oil seed (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
0 50 100 150 200 250
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
PURE VEGETABLE OIL CO 2 emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 13 (D)
oil seeds
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 24 (D)
oil seeds
Study 25 (D)
oil seeds
68
VIEWLS
oil seeds (3)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
82

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
PURE VEGETABLE OIL primary energy demand for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 13 (D)
oil seeds
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 24 (D)
oil seeds
Study 25 (D)
oil seeds
3.5
VIEWLS
oil seeds (3)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
83

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 8
BIODIESEL FACT SHEET
85

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
87

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
88

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
89

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
90

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIODIESEL CO 2 -eq. emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 67 (A)
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country)
considered.
oil seeds
Study 25 (D)
oil seeds
Study 71 (EU)
oil seeds
Study 67 (A)
used oil/fat
98
oil seeds (3)
VIEWLS
n.a.
used oil/fat (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference results.
Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
-50 0 50 100 150 200
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
BIODIESEL CO 2 -eq. emissions for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 35
(other)
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
oil seeds
Study 67 (A)
oil seeds
Study 71 (EU)
oil seeds
Study 67 (A)
used oil/fat
81
oil seeds (3)
VIEWLS
6.1
used oil/fat (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
-50 0 50 100 150 200
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
91

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIODIESEL CO 2 emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 21
(A, DK,
F, D,
GR, I,
NL)
Study 9
(EU)
oil seeds
oil seeds
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 3
(S)
oil seeds
Study 7
(CH)
Study 67
(A)
Study 13
(D)
Study 24
(D)
Study 25
(D)
Study 15
(NL)
oil seeds
oil seeds
oil seeds
oil seeds
oil seeds
oil seeds
Study 67
(A)
VIEWLS
used oil/fat
oil seeds (9)
used oil/fat (1)
n.a.
66
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
BIODIESEL CO 2 emissions for future tchnology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 67 (A)
oil seeds
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 67 (A)
used oil/fat
37
oil seeds (1)
VIEWLS
6.6
used oil/fat (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
92

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIODIESEL primary energy demand for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 13 (D)
oil seeds
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 24 (D)
oil seeds
Study 25 (D)
oil seeds
Study 71 (D)
oil seeds
VIEWLS
oil seeds (4)
3.8
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
BIODIESEL primary energy demand for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 35 (other)
oil seeds
Study 71 (EU)
oil seeds
2.1
VIEWLS
oil seeds (2)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
93

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 9
FISCHER-TROPSCH DIESEL
FACT SHEET
95

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
97

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
98

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
99

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
100

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
FISCHER-TROPSCH DIESEL CO 2 -eq. emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic residues
n.a.
ligno-cellulosci crops (1)
VIEWLS
n.a.
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
FISCHER-TROPSCH DIESEL CO 2 -eq. emissions for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic residues
Study 48 (EU)
lignocellulosic residues
18
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS
20
lignocellulosic residues (2)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
101

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
FISCHER-TROPSCH DIESEL CO 2 emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 15 (NL)
lignocellulosic crops
n.a.
VIEWLS
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
102

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
FISCHER-TROPSCH DIESEL primary energy demand for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic residues
n.a.
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS
n.a.
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
FISCHER-TROPSCH DIESEL primary energy demand for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 48 (EU)
lignocellulosic residues
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic residues
3.5
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS
3.7
lignocellulosic residues (2)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
103

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 10
BIO-DME FACT SHEET
105

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
107

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
108

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
109

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
110

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIO-DME CO 2 -eq. emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic residues
n.a.
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS
n.a.
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
BIO-DME CO 2 -eq. emissions for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic residues
13
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS
8.5
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
111

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIO-DME CO 2 emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 15 (NL)
lignocellulosic crops
n.a.
VIEWLS
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
112

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIO-DME primary energy demand for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic residues
n.a.
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS
n.a.
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
BIO-DME primary energy demand for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic residues
3.2
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS
3.2
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
113

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 11
BIOGAS FACT SHEET
115

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
117

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
118

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
119

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
120

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIOGAS CO 2 -eq. emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 67 (A)
starch crops
Study 67 (A)
animal manures
n.a.
starch crops (1)
VIEWLS
-270
animal manures (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
BIOGAS CO 2 -eq. emissions for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 67 (A)
starch crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 67 (A)
animal manures
Study 48 (EU)
organic wastes
n.a.
starch crops (1)
-170
VIEWLS
animal manures (1)
n.a.
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
organic wastes (1) results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
121

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIOGAS CO 2 emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 3
(S)
starch crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 67
(A)
starch crops
Study 3
(S)
organic wastes
Study 13
(D)
organic wastes
Study 24
(D)
organic wastes
Study 67
(A)
VIEWLS
animal manures
starch crops (2)
organic wastes (3)
animal manures (1)
39
38
43
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
BIOGAS CO 2 emissions for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 67 (A)
starch crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 67 (A)
animal manures
n.a.
starch crops (1)
VIEWLS
32
animal manures (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
122

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIOGAS primary energy demand for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 13 (D)
organic wastes
Study 24 (D)
organic wastes
4.9
VIEWLS
organic wastes (2)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
BIOGAS primary energy demand for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 48 (EU)
organic wastes
2.9
VIEWLS
organic wastes (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values are given for 2 significant digits.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
123

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 12
GASEOUS BIOHYDROGEN FACT
SHEET
125

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
127

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
128

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
129

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
130

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
GASEOUS BIOHYDROGEN CO 2 -eq. emissions for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 67 (A)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 48
(EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 71
(EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 67 (A)
lignocellulosic residues
Study 48
(EU)
lignocellulosic residues
32
lignocellulosic crops (3)
VIEWLS
23
lignocellulosic residues (2)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
131

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
GASEOUS BIOHYDROGEN CO 2 emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 13 (D)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 24 (D)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 13 (D)
lignocellulosic residues
82
lignocellulosic crops (2)
VIEWLS
n.a.
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
GASEOUS BIOHYDROGEN CO 2 emissions for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 67 (A)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 67 (A)
lignocellulosic residues
42
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS
35
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
132

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
GASEOUS BIOHYDROGEN primary energy demand for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 13 (D)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 24 (D)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 13 (D)
lignocellulosic residues
2.8
lignocellulosic crops (2)
VIEWLS
n.a.
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
GASEOUS BIOHYDROGEN primary energy demand for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 48 (EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 48 (EU)
lignocellulosic residues
2.8
lignocellulosic crops (2)
VIEWLS
2.1
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
133

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 13
LIQUID BIOHYDROGEN FACT
SHEET
135

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
137

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
138

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
139

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
140

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
LIQUID BIOHYDROGEN CO 2 -eq. emissions for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 67 (A)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 67 (A)
lignocellulosic residues
39
lignocellulosic crops (2)
VIEWLS
56
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
141

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
LIQUID BIOHYDROGEN CO 2 emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 13 (D)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 24 (D)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 15 (NL)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 13 (D)
lignocellulosic residues
78
lignocellulosic crops (3)
VIEWLS
lignocellulosic residues (1)
n.a.
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
LIQUID BIOHYDROGEN CO 2 emissions for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 67 (A)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 67 (A)
lignocellulosic residues
57
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS
51
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
142

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
LIQUID BIOHYDROGEN primary energy demand for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study 13 (D)
lignocellulosic crops
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 24 (D)
lignocellulosic crops
Study 13 (D)
lignocellulosic residues
3.4
lignocellulosic crops (2)
VIEWLS
n.a.
lignocellulosic residues (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
LIQUID BIOHYDROGEN primary energy demand for future technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 71 (EU)
lignocellulosic crops
n.a.
VIEWLS
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Primary energy demand [MJ/km]
143

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 14
BIO-SNG FACT SHEET
145

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
147

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
148

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
149

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
150

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
BIO-SNG CO 2 emissions for current technology -
Results from studies and VIEWLS Reference Results
Study: Study number see Study No. List, in brackets the region (country) considered.
Study 15 (NL)
lignocellulosic crops
n.a.
VIEWLS
lignocellulosic crops (1)
VIEWLS: in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results. Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
n.a. not applicable; definition of reference value not practical.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
151

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
152

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
APPENDIX 15
SUMMARY BIOFUELS FACT
SHEET
153

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
155

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
7
17
VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
Biofuel cost range at filling station (€ 2002 /GJ) -
Current technology
51
45
46
36
40
31
29
25
23
22 22
Gaseous bioH2
BioDME
Liquid bioH2
BioSNG
FT-diesel
Biogas
Bioethanol
BioETBE
Biomethanol
BioMTBE
156
Vegetable oil
Biodiesel
Fossil fuels

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
9
16 16
VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
Biofuel cost range at filling station (€ 2002 /GJ) -
Future technology
34
35
38
28
25
22
21
18 18
Gaseous bioH2
BioDME
Liquid bioH2
Vegetable oil
FT-diesel
Bioethanol
BioETBE
Biomethanol
BioMTBE
157
BioSNG
Biodiesel
Fossil fuels

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
7
11
18
20 21 21
VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
Biofuel cost range at filling station (€ 2002 /GJ) -
Current technology
46 47
43 44
41 41 41
37 37
38 38
35 36
34
33
27
29 30
22
23 23 24
DME-Lignoc.crops
LH2-Lignoc.crops
SNG-Lignoc.residues
FT-diesel-Lignoc.residues
SNG-Lignoc.crops
Bioethanol-Starch
Biogas-Manures
Bioethanol-Sugar
FT-diesel-Lignoc.crops
ETBE-Starch
Bioethanol-Lignoc.residues
Biogas-Wastes
ETBE-Sugar
158
Bioethanol-Lignoc.crops
Biomethanol-Lignoc.residues
ETBE-Lignoc.residues
ETBE-Lignoc.crops
Biomethanol-Lignoc.crops
MTBE-Lignoc.residues
MTBE-Lignoc.crops
DME-Lignoc.residues
Vegetable oil
LH2-Lignoc.residues
Biodiesel-Oil seeds
GH2-Lignoc.crops
GH2-Lignoc.residues
Biodiesel-Org.wastes
Fossil fuels

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
9
10
15 15
VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
Biofuel cost range at filling station (€ 2002 /GJ) -
Future technology
31 31
33
34 34 35
27 27 27 28 29
24
25
22 23
20 20
18 18
16 16 16
SNG-Lignoc.crops
GH2-Lignoc.crops
DME-Lignoc.crops
LH2-Lignoc.residues
LH2-Lignoc.crops
Vegetable oil
Biodiesel-Oil seeds
Bioethanol-Lignoc.residues
FT-diesel-Lignoc.residues
Bioethanol-Lignoc.crops
Bioethanol-Sugar
Bioethanol-Starch
ETBE-Lignoc.residues
ETBE-Lignoc.crops
FT-diesel-Lignoc.crops
ETBE-Starch
Biomethanol-Lignoc.residues
Biomethanol-Lignoc.crops
ETBE-Sugar
MTBE-Lignoc.residues
MTBE-Lignoc.crops
159
GH2-Lignoc.residues
DME-Lignoc.residues
Fossil fuels
Biodiesel-Org.wastes
SNG-Lignoc.residues

60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
24.4
25.2 25.4
27.4
VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
Total driving cost range (€ 2002 /100 km) -
Current technology
46.3
36.9
34.7
32.8 32.9
31.2 31.5
30.1
29.0
FT-diesel
Bio-DME
Bioethanol
SNG
Biomethanol
Biogas
Gaseous bioH2
Liquid bioH2
160
Vegetable oil
Biodiesel
MTBE15
ETBE15
Fossil fuels

60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
25.5
25.6 25.8
VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
Total driving cost range (€ 2002 /100 km) -
Future technology
50.9
35.1
31.2
30.2 30.6
29.3
28.3 28.7 28.8
Biodiesel
Bioethanol
Vegetable oil
FT-diesel
SNG
Bio-DME
Gaseous bioH2
Liquid bioH2
Biomethanol
161
MTBE15
ETBE15
Fossil fuels

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
gaseous biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (2)
2.8
3.4
liquid biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (2)
pure vegetable oil / oil seeds (3)
3.5
biodiesel / oil seeds (4)
3.8
biomethanol / lignocellulosic crops (2)
4.1
bioethanol / sugar crops (3)
biogas / organic wastes (2)
4.8
4.9
bioethanol / starch crops (2)
bioethanol / lignocellulosic crops (2)
5.7
5.8
bioethanol / lignocellulosic residues (1)
6.2
gasoline (3)
2.5
diesel (3)
2.1
mix diesel&gasoline (3)
2.4
Number in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference results.
Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
primary energy demand [MJ/km]
Reference values and ranges of primary energy demand (MJ/km) – Current technology.
163

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
biomethanol / lignocellulosic crops (2)
bioethanol / starch crops (2)
biodiesel / oil seeds (2)
gaseous biohydrogen / lignocellulosic residues (1)
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
biomethanol / lignocellulosic residues (4)
bioethanol / sugar crops (2)
gaseous biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (2)
biogas / organic wastes (1)
bio-DME / lignocellulosic crops (1)
bio-DME / lignocellulosic residues (1)
2.5
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.2
3.2
Fischer-Tropsch diesel / lignocellulosic crops (1)
Fischer-Tropsch diesel / lignocellulosic residues (2)
bioethanol / lignocellulosic crops (1)
bioethanol / lignocellulosic residues (1)
gasoline (3)
diesel (3)
mix diesel&gasoline (3)
2.2
2
2.1
3.5
3.7
4.9
4.9
Number in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference results.
Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
primary energy demand [MJ/km]
Reference values and ranges of primary energy demand (MJ/km) – Future technology.
164

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
-270
biogas / animal manures (1)
39
bioethanol / lignocellulosic residues (1)
47
bioethanol / lignocellulosic crops (1)
98
biodiesel / oil seeds (3)
pure vegetable oil / oil seed (1)
100
bioethanol / sugar crops (2)
140
200
bioethanol / starch crops (2)
230
gasoline (3)
180
diesel (3)
mix diesel&gasoline (3)
Number in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference
results.
Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
210
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
Reference values and ranges of CO 2-eq emissions (g CO 2-eq/km) – Current technology.
165

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
biogas / animal manures (1)
biomethanol / lignocellulosic residues (5)
biodiesel / used oil/fat (1)
bio-DME / lignocellulosic residues (1)
bio-DME / lignocellulosic crops (1)
Fischer-Tropsch diesel / lignocellulosic crops (1)
Fischer-Tropsch diesel / lignocellulosic residues (2)
gaseous biohydrogen / lignocellulosic residues (2)
bioethanol / lignocellulosic residues (1)
gaseous biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (3)
liquid biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (2)
bioethanol / lignocellulosic crops (2)
biomethanol / lignocellulosic crops (3)
liquid biohydrogen / lignocellulosic residues (1)
bioethanol / sugar crops (3)
biodiesel / oil seeds (3)
bioethanol / starch crops (3)
gasoline (3)
diesel (3)
mix diesel&gasoline (3)
-170
-10
6.1
8.5
13
Number in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference results.
Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
18
20
23
32
32
39
40
49
56
75
81
110
170
150
160
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
CO 2 -eq. emissions [g CO 2 -eq./km]
Reference values and ranges of CO 2-eq emissions (g CO 2-eq/km) – Future technology.
166

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
biomethanol / lignocellulosic crops (3)
biogas / animal manures (1)
biogas / organic wastes (3)
biogas / starch crops (2)
bioethanol / lignocellulosic crops (3)
Number in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results.
Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
36
38
39
43
47
66
biodiesel / oil seeds (9)
pure vegetable oil / oil seeds (3)
68
liquid biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (3)
gaseous biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (2)
78
82
110
bioethanol / sugar crops (4)
bioethanol / starch crops (4)
120
gasoline (3)
220
diesel (3)
180
mix diesel&gasoline (3)
210
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
Reference values and ranges of CO 2 emissions (g CO 2/km) – Current technology.
167

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
biomethanol / lignocellulosic residues (2)
biodiesel / used oil/fat (1)
bioethanol / lignocellulosic crops (1)
bioethanol / sugar crops (1)
biogas / animal manures (1)
gaseous biohydrogen / lignocellulosic residues
(1)
biodiesel / oil seeds (1)
gaseous biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (1)
biomethanol / lignocellulosic crops (1)
bioethanol / starch crops (1)
liquid biohydrogen / lignocellulosic residues (1)
liquid biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (1)
gasoline (3)
diesel (3)
mix diesel&gasoline (3)
Number in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference results.
Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
-57
6.6
32
32
32
35
37
42
44
50
51
57
150
160
170
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
CO 2 emissions [g CO 2 /km]
Reference values and ranges of CO 2 emissions (g CO 2/km) – Future technology.
168

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
biodiesel / oil seeds (9)
pure vegetable oil / oil seeds (3)
260
290
Number in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference results.
Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
bioethanol / lignocellulosic crops (3)
440
biomethanol / lignocellulosic crops (3)
460
560
bioethanol / starch crops (4)
570
bioethanol / sugar crops (4)
620
biogas / organic wastes (3)
710
biogas / animal manures (1)
950
gaseous biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (2)
1,600
liquid biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (3)
-1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
CO 2 mitigation costs [€ / t CO 2 ]
CO 2 mitigation costs (€ 2002/t CO 2) – Current technology.
169

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
biodiesel / used oil/fat (1)
biodiesel / oil seeds (1)
41
150
Number in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS
reference results.
Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
bioethanol / lignocellulosic crops (1)
230
bioethanol / sugar crops (1)
260
bioethanol / starch crops (1)
300
gaseous biohydrogen / lignocellulosic residues
(1)
gaseous biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (1)
430
460
840
liquid biohydrogen / lignocellulosic residues (1)
930
liquid biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (1)
1100
biomethanol / lignocellulosic residues (2)
2200
biomethanol / lignocellulosic crops (1)
-1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
CO 2 mitigation costs [€ / t CO 2 ]
CO 2 mitigation costs (€ 2002/t CO 2) – Future technology.
170

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
210
biogas / animal manures (1)
Number in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference results.
Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
350
bioethanol / lignocellulosic residues (1)
360
biodiesel / oil seeds (3)
410
bioethanol / lignocellulosic crops (1)
410
pure vegetable oil / oil seeds (1)
710
bioethanol / sugar crops (2)
1,800
bioethanol / starch crops (2)
-1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
CO 2 -eq. mitigation costs [€ / t CO 2 -eq.]
CO 2-eq mitigation costs (€ 2002/t CO 2-eq) – Current technology.
171

VIEWLS- WP2. Environmental and economic performance of biofuels
40
biodiesel / used oil/fat (1)
bioethanol / lignocellulosic residues (1)
bioethanol / lignocellulosic crops (2)
FT diesel / lignocellulosic residues (2)
FT diesel / lignocellulosic crops (1)
bio-DME / lignocellulosic residues (1)
bio-DME / lignocellulosic crops (1)
bioethanol / sugar crops (2)
biodiesel / oil seeds (3)
gaseous biohydrogen / lignocellulosic residues
(2)
gaseous biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (3)
bioethanol / starch crops (3)
liquid biohydrogen / lignocellulosic crops (2)
liquid biohydrogen / lignocellulosic residues (1)
200
240
240
290
320
360
370
390
400
430
590
780
890
Number in brackets number of studies considered for the VIEWLS reference results.
Reference values given for 2 significant digits.
biomethanol / lignocellulosic residues (5)
1400
biomethanol / lignocellulosic crops (3)
2300
-1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
CO 2 -eq. mitigation costs [€ / t CO 2 -eq.]
CO 2-eq mitigation costs (€ 2002/t CO 2-eq) – Future technology.
172