Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Use of on-farm produced biofuels on organic farms: Evaluation of energy balances and environmental loads for three possible fuels
RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, JTI Institutet för Jordbruks- och Miljöteknik.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9337-6119
RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, JTI Institutet för Jordbruks- och Miljöteknik.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1662-9730
Show others and affiliations
2006 (English)In: Agricultural Systems, ISSN 0308-521X, E-ISSN 1873-2267, Vol. 89, no 1, p. 184-203Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The aim of this work was to evaluate systems making organic farms self-sufficient in farm-produced bio-based fuels. The energy balance and environmental load for systems based on rape methyl ester (RME), ethanol and biogas were evaluated using a life cycle perspective. Complete LCAs were not performed. Important constraints when implementing the systems in practice were also identified. The RME scenario showed favourable energy balance and produced valuable by-products but was less positive in some other aspects. The use of land was high and thereby also the emissions associated with cultivation. Emissions, with the exception of CO2, during utilisation of the fuel were high compared to those of the other fuels in the study. The technology for production and use of RME is well known and easy to implement at farm scale. The production of ethanol was energy consuming and the by-products were relatively low value. However, the area needed for cultivation of raw material was low compared to the RME scenario. The production and utilisation of ignition improver and denaturants were associated with considerable emissions. Suitable ethanol production technology is available but is more optimal for large scale systems. The biogas scenario had a low relative need for arable land, which also resulted in smaller soil emissions to air and water. Another advantage was the potential to recycle plant nutrients. On the other hand, the potential emissions of methane from storage of digestate, upgrading of biogas and methane losses during utilisation of fuel produced a negative impact, mainly on global warming. Small scale technology for biogas cleaning and storage is not fully developed and extensive tractor modifications are necessary. The global warming effects of all three systems studied were reduced by 58-72% in comparison to a similar farming system based on diesel fuel. However, the fuel costs were higher for all scenarios studied compared to current diesel prices. In particular, the large costs for seasonal storage of gas meant that the biogas scenario described is currently not financially viable. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2006. Vol. 89, no 1, p. 184-203
National Category
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ri:diva-2472DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.08.009Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-33645819837OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ri-2472DiVA, id: diva2:960062
Available from: 2016-09-07 Created: 2016-09-07 Last updated: 2025-02-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Baky, AndrasNordberg, Åke

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Baky, AndrasNordberg, Åke
By organisation
JTI Institutet för Jordbruks- och Miljöteknik
In the same journal
Agricultural Systems
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 48 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf