Suchergebnisse

In Sweden, the agricultural sector uses an estimated 3.7 TWh per year as electricity or fuel. About 34% of this total is estimated to be used in the production of beef, pork, eggs and milk, including the spreading of manure. Some energy is also used for harvesting ley and cereals as feed, which is not included. Most of the energy used is in the form of electricity (approx 63%). All these estimates are based on a 1981-1984 survey by Nilsson & Påhlstorp (1985). Most of the technical equipment is still the same today on farms of comparable size and production methods. However, herds of pigs and cattle are larger now, and therefore new equipment is being used. The average Swedish dairy farm is 39% larger (49 cows) than the EU-15 average (35.5 cows) and herd size is growing rapidly. The climate in winter at the study farms is not as cold as that in central Europe or northern Sweden, although air temperature was below 0ºC for about 3 months in 2006 (average -0.1ºC, Dec-Feb.) In the period June-August, the average temperature was 17.8ºC in 2005 and 19.1ºC in 2006. It only exceeded 30ºC for a period longer than three hours on seven occasions. Because of the climate, it is necessary to have artificial heating in buildings for sows (farrowing section). In all other buildings the animals produce enough heat themselves to keep the house warm. When breeding cattle or dry sows some farmers accept a low inside temperature. Swedish animal welfare legislation requires more space per animal than most other countries. Slatted floors in lying areas are only permissible for fattening steers. Cages for laying hens have to include a sand-bath, nest and perches. Another difference is that sows can only be kept in crates occasionally and can never be tied up. The purpose of this study was to collect data on energy use on modern farms of a size and with a level of technical equipment that could be expected to be in use for the next 10-15 years. The data obtained were then added to data from Nilsson & Påhlstorp (1985).The survey was conducted on 16 farms with buildings mainly constructed during the past 10 years and with modern equipment. All these farms except one were in the south of Sweden (Skåne, Halland, Lat. 55-56ºN) and the last one 180 km south-east of Stockholm (Lat. 58ºN). The study was structured as follows: - Four complete dairy farms were studied in detail and another three were studied because they had interesting technical equipment that was not installed on the first four farms. - Three farms with pigs were studied. One had an FTS-system (Farrowing To Slaughter in the same pen), one a farrowing-growing system (Farrowing to approx. 25 kg/11 weeks in the same pen), and one had fattening pigs (approx. 25-110 kg). - Two farms with laying hens were studied. One had furnished cages and the other had laying hens on floors. - Two broiler houses were studied. - Four different types of grain dryers were studied: batch drier, circulating batch drier, continuous drier and batch-in-bin drier with multiple stirring augers. To measure electricity use, electricity meters of the type used by power companies were installed. These meters distinguishing between feeding, ventilation, light, manure handling and, for some plants, cleaning/disinfection, heating, milking and packing of eggs. When all these were measured there was still some more electricity that was impossible to measure or to distribute to the right category. This was categorised as Miscellaneous. Meters were also installed for estimating the power (W) used at one piglet farm and at two dairy farms. The data were processed and are included in the appendices in order to allow estimations to be made for other farms and evaluations to reduce the use of energy (power). In milk production, energy use was between 930 and 1540 kWh/cow per year (0.125-0.203 kWh/L milk). The functions that used most energy were milking and feeding, which together used 65-75% of total energy. On farms that used a wheel loader and tractor for mixing Total Mixed Ration (TMR), energy consumption was higher than on those farms that used electrical engines for mixing. One litre of diesel was set to 9.8 kWh. Production of piglets (approx. 25 kg) used 689 kWh/sow per year, which means about 28.7 kWh/25 kg pig (assuming 24 piglets/sow & year). During the fattening period (25-110 kg), energy use was 20 kWh per pig. The total energy requirement to produce finishing pigs from birth to 110 kg was thus 48.7 kWh/110 kg pig or 1163 kWh/sow per year, assuming a sow produces 24 piglets per year. This can be compared with the FTS-system, which uses 2431 kWh/sow per year. This difference is not completely caused by different breeding systems but is more likely to be due to difference in buildings, and therefore to a greater need for energy for lighting and ventilation, and a higher temperature in the farrowing unit. The farm that used less energy heated the breeding areas with a heat-pump, while another used diesel as fuel. Most energy was used for heating (including the use of heat lamps). If the building for dry sows needs mechanical ventilation and artificial light, then this leads to a greater use of energy. Egg production with laying hens in furnished cages used 3.1 kWh/year per hen, while a system with free hens used 5.0 kWh/year per hen. Light and ventilation fans used most energy, but were also the functions that showed the greatest differences between the systems. The difference in energy used for light is most probably due to the higher light intensity and to the two extra hours of light each day in the system with free layers. In broiler production, the largest use of energy was heating (84%), followed by light (10.7%) and ventilation (3.6%). The energy needed to produce one broiler (1.5 kg) was an estimated 0.91 kWh. This value is an average of five batches due to large variations between batches. The use of electricity differed from 6% to 20% between similar houses. All the grain driers except the batch-in-bin drier used between 4.2 and 9.1 kWh per 1000 kg of grain during 2005 and 2006. Due to bad weather conditions the use of energy was 30% higher in 2006. The batch-in-bin dryer used 12.0 kWh per 1000 kg of grain 2006. Due to different technical standards the values are not directly comparable, but the data are valid for the separate functions.

In Uganda, the energy sector like the rest of the economy has suffered severe setback during the 1970s and l980s, the years of political problems in that country. It has been seen that middle class households and even the upper class are reverting from the more efficient and cleaner fuels i.e. electricity and gas, to woodfuel in form of charcoal due partly to the unrealiability of the clean fuels and partly to their high prices and that of the appliances required in their utilisation. This report is a result of a Minor Field Study to evaluate the energy situation in Uganda with the aim of establishing the possibilities of introducing biogas systems in the countryside. It came out during the study that the country faces fuel shortage in the urban areas and some parts of the rural areas and the situation is deteriorating with time. Factors contributing to this situation include inefficient use of fuelwood and charcoal, the rapid population increase without corresponding technological development, rapid growth of the urban areas and the intensive exploitation without replanting of forest products for other purposes. The report gives a general description of biogas production, its characteristics, and its use for cooking, lighting, heating, driving of engines, generating of electricity and curing of tobacco. There is an outline of safety precautions during the production and use of the gas. Conditions for the introduction of biogas systems in the rural areas of Uganda are also outlined and these include, energy needs, availability of technical know-how, availability of building material and availability of organic materials for biogas production. It is pointed out in the report that all these conditions are fairly satisfactorily fulfilled as it concerns the Ugandan situation. The Chinese Pilot Project consisting of seven plants in the eastern part of Uganda is examined. Some plants have managerial problems but the biggest problem is that the project has no technical backup in terms of repairs and servicing, whenever problems arise. There is hardly any data being collected from the plants and no visible follow-up. The local extension staff do not have knowledge about the functioning of the units and therefore they are not useful to the unit owners in terms of advice and repairs. Some differences in basic conditions as relates to biogas technology transfer are briefly examined It turns out that the pilot plants are very expensive. There is an observation on the likely effects of introducing biogas systems in rural Uganda. It is likely that if care is not taken, the project can increase the labour burden on some members of the society. The health conditions in the society should improve and the environment conservated. There then comes an economic analysis which points out that research is needed to produce a cheaper design.

There is no doubt now that energy is fundamental to our development. Global energy trends such as higher energy demand and prices, big differences across regions, structural changes in an oil and gas industry increasingly dominated by national companies, the prospect of irreversible climate change, as well as demand for energy security all highlight the need for a rapid transition to a low-carbon, efficient and environmentally benign energy system. The search for energy alternatives involving locally available and renewable resources is one of the main concerns of governments, scientists and business people worldwide. As researchers tackle problems according to global trends, an overwhelming body of research focusing on bioenergy in relation to other types of renewable energy might illustrate the role bioenergy has as the most important renewable energy source for the near and medium-term future. Thus, analyzing the amount of existing research, we found that about 50% (4,911 records) of 9,724 renewable energy records available were bioenergy records. We also found that publications on each of the four main sources of biomass (agriculture, forest, waste and other) represent about one quarter of the 4,911 bioenergy records retrieved. Biomass – the fourth largest energy source after coal, oil and natural gas - is the largest and most important renewable energy option at present and can be used to produce different forms of energy. As a result, it is, together with the other renewable energy options, capable of providing all the energy services required in a modern society, both locally and in most parts of the world. Renewability and versatility are, among many other aspects, important advantages of biomass as an energy source. Moreover, compared to other renewables, biomass resources are common and widespread across the globe. The sustainability potential of global biomass for energy is widely recognized. For example, the annual global primary production of biomass is equivalent to the 4,500 EJ of solar energy captured each year. About 5% of this energy, or 225 EJ, should cover almost 50% of the world's total primary energy demand at present. These 225 EJ are in line with other estimates which assume a sustainable annual bioenergy market of 270 EJ. However, the 50 EJ biomass contributed to global primary energy demand of 470 EJ in 2007, mainly in the form of traditional non-commercial biomass, is only 10% of the global primary energy demand. The potential for energy from biomass depends in part on land availability. Currently, the amount of land devoted to growing energy crops for biomass fuels is only 0.19% of the world's total land area and only 0.5-1.7% of global agricultural land. Although the large potential of algae as a resource of biomass for energy is not taken into consideration in this report, there are results that demonstrate that algae can, in principle, be used as a renewable energy source. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the report leads to a simple conclusion: Biomass potential for energy production is promising. In most cases, shifting the energy mix from fossil fuels to renewables can now be done using existing technology. Investors in many cases have a reasonably short pay-back because of good availability of lowcost biomass fuels. The latter is of course dependant on local incentives, however. Overall, the future of bioenergy is also to a large extent determined by policy. Thus, an annual bioenergy supply covering global energy demand in 2050, superseding 1,000 EJ, should be possible with sufficient political support. Global production of biomass and biofuel is growing rapidly due to the increasing price of fossil fuels, growing environmental concerns, and considerations regarding the security and diversification of energy supply. There are many scenarios that predict a high potential for biomass in the future. There have also been many studies performed in recent decades to estimate the future demand and supply of bioenergy. Overall, the world's bioenergy potential seems to be large enough to meet the global energy demand in 2050. The current stock of standing forest is a large reservoir of bioenergy and in line with the theoretical potential of biomass energy. However, most of the research studies on biomass potentials ignore existing studies on demand and supply of wood, despite the extensive literature and data on the subject. Taking into account data from a variety of international sources, rough estimates of the energy production potential of woody biomass from forestry show that, in theory, the demand for wood fuel and industrial roundwood in 2050 can be met, without further deforestation, although regional shortages may occur. However, the shift in the energy mix requires much more investment in infrastructure, equipment and in some cases R&D. Moreover, a prerequisite for achieving bioenergy's substantially high potential in all regions is replacing current inefficient and low-intensive management systems with best practices and technologies.

The European Commission expects the use of biomass for energy in the EU to increase significantly between 2010 and 2020 to meet a legally binding target to cover at least 20% of EU's total energy use from renewable sources in 2020. According to estimates made by the member states of the EU, the direct supply of biomass from forests is expected to increase by 45% on a volume basis between 2006 and 2020 in response to increasing demand (Beurskens LWM, Hekkenberg M, Vethman P. Renewable energy projections as published in the national renewable energy action plans of the European Member states. ECN and EEA; 2011. http://https://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2010/e10069.pdf [accessed 25.04.2014]; Dees M, Yousef A, Ermert J. Analysis of the quantitative tables of the national renewable energy action plans prepared by the 27 European Union Member States in 2010. BEE working paper D7.2. Biomass Energy Europe project. FELIS Department of Remote Sensing and landscape information Systems, University of Freiburg, Germany; 2011). Our aims were to test the hypotheses that European private forest owners' attitudes towards supplying woody biomass for energy (1) can be explained by their responses to changes in prices and markets and (2) are positive so that the forest biomass share of the EU 2020 renewable energy target can be met. Based on survey data collected in 2010 from 800 private forest owners in Sweden, Germany and Portugal our results show that the respondents' attitudes towards supplying woody biomass for energy cannot be explained as direct responses to changes in prices and markets. Our results, furthermore, imply that European private forest owners cannot be expected to supply the requested amounts of woody biomass for energy to meet the forest biomass share of the EU 2020 renewable energy target, at least if stemwood is to play the important role as studies by Verkerk PJ, Anttila P, Eggers J, Lindner M, Asikainen A. The realisable potential supply of woody biomass from forests in the European Union. For Ecol Manag 2011;261: 2007-2015, UNECE and FAO. The European forest sector outlook study,II 2010-2030. United Nations, New York and Geneva; 2011 [abbreviated to EFSOS II] and Elbersen B, Staritsky I, Hengeveld G, Schelhaas MJ, Naeff H, Bottcher H. Atlas of EU biomass potentials; 2012. Available from: http://www.biomassfutures.eu [accessed 14.10.2013] suggest. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The global growth in energy demand continues, but the way of meeting rising energy needs is not sustainable. The use of biomass energy is a widely accepted strategy towards sustainable development that sees the fastest rate with the most of increase in power generation followed by strong rises in the consumption of biofuels for transport. Agriculture, forestry and wood energy sector are the leading sources of biomass for bioenergy. However, to be acceptable, biomass feedstock must be produced sustainably. Bioenergy from sustainably managed systems could provide a renewable and carbon neutral source of energy. Bioenergy systems can be relatively complex, intersectoral and site- and scale-specific. The environmental benefits of biomass-for-energy production systems can vary strongly, depending on site properties, climate, management system and input intensities. Bioenergy supply is closely linked to issues of water and land use. It is important to understand the effects of introducing it as well as it is necessary to promote integrated and synergic policies and approaches in the sectors of forestry, agriculture, energy, industry and environment. Biofuels offer attractive solutions to reducing GHG emissions, addressing energy security concerns and have also other socio-economic advantages. Currently produced biofuels are classified as first-generation. Some first-generation biofuels, such as for example ethanol from corn possibly have a limited role in the future transport fuel mix, other ones such as ethanol from sugarcane or biodiesel made from oils extracted from rerennial crops, as well as non-food and industrial crops requiring minimal input and maintenance and offering several benefits over conventional annual crops for ethanol production are promising. Sugarcane ethanol has greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoidance potential; can be produced sustainably; can be cost effective without governments support mechanisms, provide useful and valuable co-products; and, if carefully managed with due regard given to sustainable land use, can support the drive for sustainable development in many developing countries. Sugarcane ethanol - currently the most effective biofuel at displacing GHG emissions - is already mitigating GHGs in Brazil. Jatropha curcas L., a multipurpose, drought resistant, perennial plant has gained lot of importance for the production of biodiesel. However, it is important to point out that nearly all of studies have overstated the impacts of first-generation biofuels on global agricultural and land markets due to the fact that they have ignored the role of biofuel by-products. However, feed by-products of first-generation biofuels, such as dried distillers grains with soluble and oilseed meals are used in the livestock industry as protein and energy sources mitigates the price impacts of biofuel production as well as reduce the demand for cropland and moderate the indirect land use consequences. The production of second generation biofuels is expected to start within a few years. Many of the problems associated with first-generation biofuels can be solved by the production of second generation biofuels manufactured from abundant ligno-cellulosic materials such as cereal straw, sugar cane bagasse, forest residues, wastes and dedicated feedstocks (purpose-grown vegetative grasses, short rotation forests and other energy crops). These feedstocks are not food competitive, do not require additional agricultural land and can be grown on marginal and wasteland. Depending on the feedstock choice and the cultivation technique, second-generation biofuel production has the potential to provide benefits such as consuming waste residues and making use of abandoned land. As much as 97-98% of GHG emissions could be avoided by substituting a fossil fuel with wood fuel. Forest fertilization is an attractive option for increasing energy security and reducing net GHG emission. In addition to carbon dioxide the emissions of methane and nitrous oxides may be important factors in GHG balance of biofuels. Forest management rules, best practices for nitrogen fertilizer use and development of second generation technologies use reduce these emissions. Soils have an important role in the global budget of greenhouse gases. However, the effects of biomass production on soil properties are entirely site and practice-specific and little is known about long-term impact. Soil biological systems are resilient and they do not show any lasting impacts due to intensive site management activities. Land management practices can change dramatically the characteristic and gas exchange of an ecosystem. GHG benefits from biomass feedstock use are in some cases significantly lower if the effects of direct¹ or indirect (ILUC²) land use change are taken into account. LUC and ILUC can impact the GHG emission by affecting carbon balance in soil and thus ecosystem. To understand carbon fluxes in an ecosystem large ecosystem units and time scale are critical. Mitigation measures of the impact of land use change on greenhouse gas emissions include the use of residues as feedstock, cultivation of feedstock on abandoned arable land and use of feedstock by-products as substitutes for primary crops as animal feed. Cropping management is the other key factor in estimating GHG emissions associated with LUC and there is significant opportunity to reduce the potential carbon debt and GHG emissions through improved crop and soil management practices, including crop choice, intensity of inputs, harvesting strategy, and tilling practices. Also a system with whole trees harvesting with nutrient compensation is closely to being greenhouse-gas-neutral. Biochar applied to the soil offers a direct method for sequestrating C and generating bioenergy. However, the most recent studies showing that emissions resulting from ILUC are significant have not been systematically compared and summarized and current practices for estimating the effects of ILUC suffer from large uncertainties. Therefore, it seems to be delicate to include the ILUC effects in the GHG emission balance at a country level. The land availability is an important factor in determining bioenergy sustainability. However, even though food and biofuel/biomass can compete for land, this is not inevitably the case. The pattern of completion competition will e.g. depend on whether food security policies are in place. Moreover, the great potential for uncomplicated biomass production lies in using residues and organic waste, introduction of second generation biofuels which are more efficient in use of land and bioresources as well as restoration of degraded and wasted areas. Agroforestry has high potential for simultaneously satisfying many important objectives at ecosystems, economic and social levels. For example, as a very flexible, but low-input system, alley cropping can supply biomass resources in a sustainable way and at the same time provide ecological benefits in Central Europe. A farming system that integrates woody crops with conventional agricultural crops/pasture can more fully utilize the basic resources of water, carbon dioxide, nutrients, and sunlight, thereby producing greater total biomass yield. Overall, whether food prices will rise in parallel to an increase in biofuel demand will depend, more on trade barriers, subsidies, policies and limitations of marketing infrastructure than on lack of physical capacity. There are plant species that provide not only biofuel resources but also has the potential to sequestrate carbon to soil. For example, reed canary grass (RCG, Phalaris arundinacea L.) indicates the potential as a carbon sink. Harvest residues are increasingly utilized to produce energy. Sweden developed a series of recommendations and good-practice guidelines (GPG) for whole tree harvesting practices. Water has a multifarious relationship to energy. Biofuel production will have a relatively minor impact on the global water use. It is critically important to use low-quality water sources and to select the crops and countries that (under current production circumstances) produce bioenergy feedstock in the water-efficient way. However, local and regional impacts of biofuel production could be substantial. Knowledge of watershed characteristics, local hydrology and natural peak flow patterns coupled with site planning, location choice and species choice, are all factors that will determine whether or not this relationship is sustainable. For example, bioethanol's water requirements can range from 5 to 2138 L per liter of ethanol depending on regional irrigation practices. Moreover, sugarcane in Brazil evaporates 2,200 liters for every liter of ethanol, but this demand is met by abundant rainfall. Biomass production can have both positive and negative effects on species diversity. However, woodfuel production systems as well as agroforestry have the potential to increase biodiversity. A regional energy planning could have an important role to play in order to achieve energy-efficient and cost-efficient energy systems. Closing the loop through the optimization of all resources is essential to minimize conflicts in resource requirements as a result of increased biomass feedstock production. A systems approach where the agricultural, forestry, energy, and environmental sectors are considered as components of a single system, and environmental liabilities are used as recoverable resources for biomass feedstock production has the potential to significantly improve the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of biofuels. The LCA (life cycle analysis) approach takes into account all the input and output flows occurring in biomass production systems. The source of biomass has a big impact on LCA outcomes and there is a broad agreement in the scientific community that LCA is one of the best methodologies for the GHG balance calculation of biomass systems. Overall, maximizing benefits of bioenergy while minimizing negative impacts is most likely to occur in the presence of adequate knowledge and frameworks, such as for example certification systems, policy and guidelines. Criteria for achieving sustainability and best land use practices when producing biomass for energy must be established and adopted. ___________ ¹ Direct land-use change occurs when feedstock for biofuels purposes (e.g. soybean for biodiesel) displace a prior land-use (e.g. forest), thereby generating possible changes in the carbon stock of that land. ² Indirect land-use change (ILUC) occurs when pressure on agriculture due to the displacement of previous activity or use of the biomass induces land-use changes on other lands.

The EU Renewable Energy Strategy (RES) Directive requires that each member state obtain 20% of its energy supply from renewable sources by 2020. If fully implemented, this implies major changes in institutions, infrastructure, land use, and natural resource flows. This study applies a political geography perspective to explore the transition to renewable energy use in the heating and cooling segment of the Swedish energy system, 1980–2010. The Nordic welfare model, which developed mainly after the Second World War, required relatively uniform, standardized local and regional authorities functioning as implementation agents for national politics. Since 1980, the welfare orientation has gradually been complemented by competition politics promoting technological change, innovation, and entrepreneurship. This combination of welfare state organization and competition politics provided the dynamics necessary for energy transition, which occurred in a semi-public sphere of actors at various geographical scales. However, our analysis, suggest that this was partly an unintended policy outcome, since it was based on a welfare model with no significant energy aims. Our case study suggests that state organization plays a significant role, and that the EU RES Directive implementation will be uneven across Europe, reflecting various welfare models with different institutional pre-requisites for energy transition.

The current share of sub-Saharan Africa in global carbon dioxide emissions is negligible compared to major contributors like Asia, Americas, and Europe. This trend is, however, likely to change given that both economic growth and rate of urbanization in the region are projected to be robust in the future. The current study contributes to the literature by examining both the direct and the indirect impacts of quality of institution on the environment. Specifically, we investigate whether the institutional setting in the region provides some sort of a complementary role in the environment-FEG relationships. We use the panel two-step system generalized method of moments (GMM) technique to deal with the simultaneity problem. Data consists of 43 sub-Saharan African countries. The result shows that energy inefficiency compromises environmental standards. However, the quality of the institutional setting helps moderate this negative consequences; countries with good institutions show greater prospects than countries with poor institutions. On the other hand, globalization of the region and increased forest size generate positive environmental outcomes in the region. Their impacts are, however, independent of the quality of institution. Afforestation programs, promotion of other clean energy types, and investment in energy efficiency, basic city infrastructure, and regulatory and institutional structures, are desirable policies to pursue to safeguard the environment.

The view of networks has changed within the field of policy studies. Once they were considered as hampering the policy process, but today they are accepted as a legitimate policy instrument. The Swedish Government, for instance, makes use of networks to steer society. One attempt to do so is the Sustainable Municipality Programme launched by the Swedish Energy Agency in 2003. Five municipalities where selected to participate in this collaborative process to further sustainable energy policies. This thesis explores the potential of network governance theory as a model for describing policy making. A case study addressing three questions was conducted. Firstly, can the Sustainable Munici-pality Programme be described within the framework of network governance theory? Secondly, is this governance network successful in its struggle to achieve its goals? Thirdly, can this example of network governance further a discussion exploring a scenario where inter-municipality network governance might pose a challenge to the principle of local government? The first and second question is answered by focusing on four functions that the governance network should fulfil; to give priority to projects; to mobilize resources, to complete projects and, to evaluate the process. In order to answer the first question the case study focuses on the interaction within the governance network. Is the process organised in a fashion recognisable as network govern-ance, as an ideal type of coordination? The analysis shows that network governance theory provides an analytic framework well suited to shed light on the process. The analysis also shows that the three first functions were achieved. Through negotiations the network gave priority to different projects. The thesis focuses on three of these. The first project includes the education of maintenance person-nel. The second is a research project, investigating different actors' possibilities to plan for a more sustainable use of energy. The third project is a research project carried out within the field of physi-cal planning. The fourth function, evaluation, still poses a problem since the actors themselves are not content with the evaluation model they produced. In order to answer the third question the case study explores the notion of local government and how it can be safeguarded within a governance network. Two indicators are used to analyse this aspect of the process; the democratic anchorage of the governance network and the transparency of the process. The analysis shows that the process has been transparent and that local politicians have had an opportunity to meta govern the process. It is, however, undoubtedly so that the actors, or municipalities, gain influence over each other's policy processes. This causes discontent since local priorities get affected, sometimes negatively. In the end of 2007, four of the five municipalities decided to remain within the programme, or the governance network, for another three years. They are now joined by an additional 60 municipalities. ; Godkänd; 2008; 20080211 (ysko)