• Energy Research
• Closed Access close
• Open Source close
• 12. Responsible consumption close
• 15. Life on land close
• AU close
• IT close

According to the renewable energy directive 2009/28/EC, the European Union Member States should increase by 2020 the use of renewable energy to 20% of gross final energy consumption and to reach a mandatory share of 10% renewable energy in the transport sector. This study aims to quantify the impact of 2020 bioenergy targets on the land use in the EU, based on the projections of the National Renewable Action Plans in four scenarios: Scenario 1. Bioenergy targets according to NREAPs; Scenario 2. Bioenergy targets according to NREAPs, no second generation biofuels; Scenario 3. Bioenergy targets according to NREAPs, reduced import of biofuels and bioliquids; Scenario 4. Bioenergy targets according to NREAPs, high imports of biofuels and bioliquids. This study also considers the credit for co-products generated from biofuel production. The analysis reveals that the land used in the EU for bioenergy would range between 13.5 Mha and 25.2 Mha in 2020. This represent between 12.2% and 22.5% of the total arable land used and 7.3% and 13.5% of the Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA). In the NREAPS scenario, about 17.4 Mha would be used for bioenergy production, representing 15.7% of arable land and 9.4% of UAA. The increased demand from biofuels would lead to an increased generation of co-products, replacing conventional fodder for animal feed. Considering the co-products, the land used for bioenergy would range between 8.8 Mha and 15.0 Mha in 2020 in the various scenarios. This represent between 7.9% and 13.3% of the total arable land used in the EU and 4.7% and 8.0% of the UAA. In the NREAPS scenario, when co-products are considered, about 10.3 Mha would be used for biofuels, bioliquids and bioenergy production, representing 9.3% of arable land and 5.6% of agricultural land. This study further provides detailed data on the impact on land use in each Member State.

According to the renewable energy directive 2009/28/EC, the European Union Member States should increase by 2020 the use of renewable energy to 20% of gross final energy consumption and to reach a mandatory share of 10% renewable energy in the transport sector. This study aims to quantify the impact of 2020 bioenergy targets on the land use in the EU, based on the projections of the National Renewable Action Plans in four scenarios: Scenario 1. Bioenergy targets according to NREAPs; Scenario 2. Bioenergy targets according to NREAPs, no second generation biofuels; Scenario 3. Bioenergy targets according to NREAPs, reduced import of biofuels and bioliquids; Scenario 4. Bioenergy targets according to NREAPs, high imports of biofuels and bioliquids. This study also considers the credit for co-products generated from biofuel production. The analysis reveals that the land used in the EU for bioenergy would range between 13.5 Mha and 25.2 Mha in 2020. This represent between 12.2% and 22.5% of the total arable land used and 7.3% and 13.5% of the Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA). In the NREAPS scenario, about 17.4 Mha would be used for bioenergy production, representing 15.7% of arable land and 9.4% of UAA. The increased demand from biofuels would lead to an increased generation of co-products, replacing conventional fodder for animal feed. Considering the co-products, the land used for bioenergy would range between 8.8 Mha and 15.0 Mha in 2020 in the various scenarios. This represent between 7.9% and 13.3% of the total arable land used in the EU and 4.7% and 8.0% of the UAA. In the NREAPS scenario, when co-products are considered, about 10.3 Mha would be used for biofuels, bioliquids and bioenergy production, representing 9.3% of arable land and 5.6% of agricultural land. This study further provides detailed data on the impact on land use in each Member State.

Microalgae have tremendous potential for producing liquid renewable fuel. Many methods for converting microalgae to biofuel have been proposed; however, an economical and energetically feasible route for algal fuel production is yet to be found. This paper presents a review on the comparison of the most promising conversion pathways of microalgae to liquid fuel: hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL), wet extraction and non-destructive extraction. The comparison is based on important assessment parameters of product quality and yield, nutrient recovery, GHG emissions, energy and the cost associated with the production of fuel from microalgae, in order to better understand the pros and cons of each method. It was found that the HTL pathway produces more oil than the wet extraction pathway; however, higher concentrations of unwanted components are present in the HTL oil produced. Less nutrients (N and P) can be recovered in HTL compared to wet extraction. HTL consumes more fossil energy and generates higher GHG emissions than wet extraction, while the production cost of fuel from HTL pathway is lower than wet extraction pathway. There is considerable uncertainty in the comparison of the energy consumption and economics of the HTL pathway and the wet extraction pathway due to different scenarios analysed in the assessment studies. To be able to appropriately compare methodologies, the conversion methods should be analysed from growth to upgradation of oil utilising sufficiently similar assumptions and scenarios. Based on the data in available literature, wet oil extraction is the more appropriate system for biofuel production than HTL. However, the potential of alternative extraction/conversion technologies, such as, non-destructive extraction, need to be further assessed.

Microalgae have tremendous potential for producing liquid renewable fuel. Many methods for converting microalgae to biofuel have been proposed; however, an economical and energetically feasible route for algal fuel production is yet to be found. This paper presents a review on the comparison of the most promising conversion pathways of microalgae to liquid fuel: hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL), wet extraction and non-destructive extraction. The comparison is based on important assessment parameters of product quality and yield, nutrient recovery, GHG emissions, energy and the cost associated with the production of fuel from microalgae, in order to better understand the pros and cons of each method. It was found that the HTL pathway produces more oil than the wet extraction pathway; however, higher concentrations of unwanted components are present in the HTL oil produced. Less nutrients (N and P) can be recovered in HTL compared to wet extraction. HTL consumes more fossil energy and generates higher GHG emissions than wet extraction, while the production cost of fuel from HTL pathway is lower than wet extraction pathway. There is considerable uncertainty in the comparison of the energy consumption and economics of the HTL pathway and the wet extraction pathway due to different scenarios analysed in the assessment studies. To be able to appropriately compare methodologies, the conversion methods should be analysed from growth to upgradation of oil utilising sufficiently similar assumptions and scenarios. Based on the data in available literature, wet oil extraction is the more appropriate system for biofuel production than HTL. However, the potential of alternative extraction/conversion technologies, such as, non-destructive extraction, need to be further assessed.

It is now recognized that analytical chemistry must also be a target for green principles, in particular chromatographic methods which typically use relatively large volumes of hazardous organic solvents. More generally, high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is employed routinely for quality control of complex mixtures in various industries. Acetonitrile and methanol are the most commonly used organic solvents in HPLC, but they generate an impact on the environment and can have a negative effect on the health of analysts. Ethanol offers an exciting alternative as a less toxic, biodegradable solvent for HPLC. In this work we demonstrate that replacement of acetonitrile with ethanol as the organic modifier for HPLC can be achieved without significantly compromising analytical performance. This general approach is demonstrated through the specific example analysis of a complex plant extract. A benchmark method employing acetonitrile for the analysis of Bidens pilosa extract was statistically optimized using the Green Chromatographic Fingerprinting Response (GCFR) which includes factors relating to separation performance and environmental parameters. Methods employing ethanol at 30 and 80°C were developed and compared with the reference method regarding their performance of separation (GCFR) as well as by a new metric, Comprehensive Metric to Compare Liquid Chromatography Methods (CM). The fingerprint with ethanol at 80°C was similar to or better than that with MeCN according to GCFR and CM. This demonstrates that temperature may be used to replace harmful solvents with greener ones in HPLC, including for solvents with significantly different physiochemical properties and without loss in separation performance. This work offers a general approach for the chromatographic analysis of complex samples without compromising green analytical chemistry principles.

It is now recognized that analytical chemistry must also be a target for green principles, in particular chromatographic methods which typically use relatively large volumes of hazardous organic solvents. More generally, high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is employed routinely for quality control of complex mixtures in various industries. Acetonitrile and methanol are the most commonly used organic solvents in HPLC, but they generate an impact on the environment and can have a negative effect on the health of analysts. Ethanol offers an exciting alternative as a less toxic, biodegradable solvent for HPLC. In this work we demonstrate that replacement of acetonitrile with ethanol as the organic modifier for HPLC can be achieved without significantly compromising analytical performance. This general approach is demonstrated through the specific example analysis of a complex plant extract. A benchmark method employing acetonitrile for the analysis of Bidens pilosa extract was statistically optimized using the Green Chromatographic Fingerprinting Response (GCFR) which includes factors relating to separation performance and environmental parameters. Methods employing ethanol at 30 and 80°C were developed and compared with the reference method regarding their performance of separation (GCFR) as well as by a new metric, Comprehensive Metric to Compare Liquid Chromatography Methods (CM). The fingerprint with ethanol at 80°C was similar to or better than that with MeCN according to GCFR and CM. This demonstrates that temperature may be used to replace harmful solvents with greener ones in HPLC, including for solvents with significantly different physiochemical properties and without loss in separation performance. This work offers a general approach for the chromatographic analysis of complex samples without compromising green analytical chemistry principles.

Abstract In recent years living walls have increasingly spread, thus becoming a diffuse architectural envelope cladding technology. Consequently, a more precise understanding of their thermal behavior and impact on the building energy balance are needed. One of the most important effects provided by the use of living walls is the shading of the building envelope, with clear benefits during the cooling period. Furthermore, many features characterize the thermal behavior of living walls, namely plant species, leaf area index (LAI), evapotranspiration, emissivity and air cavity type. All these particular characteristics have been accounted in the mathematical model developed in the frame of the presented research, whose aim is to provide a tool for the prediction of the thermal behavior of living walls. Two kinds of living walls, one with grass and closed air cavity and the other one with vertical garden and open air cavity were considered. The results achieved by means of the developed model show a good agreement with the measurements also supported by model efficiency indexes such as Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index (NSEC). Values of around 0.7 were obtained for the NSEC index for both the investigated living walls.

Abstract In recent years living walls have increasingly spread, thus becoming a diffuse architectural envelope cladding technology. Consequently, a more precise understanding of their thermal behavior and impact on the building energy balance are needed. One of the most important effects provided by the use of living walls is the shading of the building envelope, with clear benefits during the cooling period. Furthermore, many features characterize the thermal behavior of living walls, namely plant species, leaf area index (LAI), evapotranspiration, emissivity and air cavity type. All these particular characteristics have been accounted in the mathematical model developed in the frame of the presented research, whose aim is to provide a tool for the prediction of the thermal behavior of living walls. Two kinds of living walls, one with grass and closed air cavity and the other one with vertical garden and open air cavity were considered. The results achieved by means of the developed model show a good agreement with the measurements also supported by model efficiency indexes such as Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index (NSEC). Values of around 0.7 were obtained for the NSEC index for both the investigated living walls.