• Energy Research
• Closed Access close
• Restricted close
• Open Source close
• Embargo close
• 15. Life on land close
• IT close
• ES 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.

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.

It's not only the carbon in the trees Forest loss affects climate not just because of the impacts it has on the carbon cycle, but also because of how it affects the fluxes of energy and water between the land and the atmosphere. Evaluating global impact is complicated because deforestation can produce different results in different climate zones, making it hard to determine large-scale trends rather than more local ones. Alkama and Cescatti conducted a global assessment of the biophysical effects of forest cover change. Forest loss amplifies diurnal temperature variations, increases mean and maximum air temperatures, and causes a significant amount of warming when compared to CO 2 emission from land-use change. Science , this issue p. 600

It's not only the carbon in the trees Forest loss affects climate not just because of the impacts it has on the carbon cycle, but also because of how it affects the fluxes of energy and water between the land and the atmosphere. Evaluating global impact is complicated because deforestation can produce different results in different climate zones, making it hard to determine large-scale trends rather than more local ones. Alkama and Cescatti conducted a global assessment of the biophysical effects of forest cover change. Forest loss amplifies diurnal temperature variations, increases mean and maximum air temperatures, and causes a significant amount of warming when compared to CO 2 emission from land-use change. Science , this issue p. 600

The influence of compost on the growth of bean plants irrigated with As-contaminated waters and its influence on the mobility of As in the soils and the uptake of As (as NaAs(III)O2) by plant components was studied at various compost application rates (3·10(4) and 6·10(4) kg ha(-1)) and at three As concentrations (1, 2 and 3 mg kg(-1)). The biomass and As and P concentrations of the roots, shoots and beans were determined at harvest time, as well as the chlorophyll content of the leaves and nonspecific and specifically bound As in the soil. The bean plants exposed to As showed typical phytotoxicity symptoms; no plants however died over the study. The biomass of the bean plants increased with the increasing amounts of compost added to the soil, attributed to the phytonutritive capacity of compost. Biomass decreased with increasing As concentrations, however, the reduction in the biomass was significantly lower with the addition of compost, indicating that the As phytotoxicity was alleviated by the compost. For the same As concentration, the As content of the roots, shoots and beans decreased with increasing compost added compared to the Control. This is due to partial immobilization of the As by the organic functional groups on the compost, either directly or through cation bridging. Most of the As adsorbed by the bean plants accumulated in the roots, while a scant allocation of As occurred in the beans. Hence, the addition of compost to soils could be used as an effective means to limit As accumulation in crops from As-contaminated waters.

The influence of compost on the growth of bean plants irrigated with As-contaminated waters and its influence on the mobility of As in the soils and the uptake of As (as NaAs(III)O2) by plant components was studied at various compost application rates (3·10(4) and 6·10(4) kg ha(-1)) and at three As concentrations (1, 2 and 3 mg kg(-1)). The biomass and As and P concentrations of the roots, shoots and beans were determined at harvest time, as well as the chlorophyll content of the leaves and nonspecific and specifically bound As in the soil. The bean plants exposed to As showed typical phytotoxicity symptoms; no plants however died over the study. The biomass of the bean plants increased with the increasing amounts of compost added to the soil, attributed to the phytonutritive capacity of compost. Biomass decreased with increasing As concentrations, however, the reduction in the biomass was significantly lower with the addition of compost, indicating that the As phytotoxicity was alleviated by the compost. For the same As concentration, the As content of the roots, shoots and beans decreased with increasing compost added compared to the Control. This is due to partial immobilization of the As by the organic functional groups on the compost, either directly or through cation bridging. Most of the As adsorbed by the bean plants accumulated in the roots, while a scant allocation of As occurred in the beans. Hence, the addition of compost to soils could be used as an effective means to limit As accumulation in crops from As-contaminated waters.