Using a Strategic Environmental Assessment framework to quantify the environmental impact of bioenergy plans

Renewable energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets are driving an acceleration in the use of bioenergy resources. The environmental impact of national and regional development plans must be assessed in compliance with the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2001/42/EC). H...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Global change biology. Bioenergy 2012-05, Vol.4 (3), p.311-329
Hauptverfasser: Finnan, John, Styles, David, Fitzgerald, Joanne, Connolly, John, Donnelly, Alison
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 329
container_issue 3
container_start_page 311
container_title Global change biology. Bioenergy
container_volume 4
creator Finnan, John
Styles, David
Fitzgerald, Joanne
Connolly, John
Donnelly, Alison
description Renewable energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets are driving an acceleration in the use of bioenergy resources. The environmental impact of national and regional development plans must be assessed in compliance with the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2001/42/EC). Here, we quantify the environmental impact of an Irish Government bioenergy plan to replace 30% of peat used in three peat‐burning power stations, located within the midlands region, with biomass. Four plan alternatives for supplying biomass to the power plant were considered in this study: (1) importation of palm kernel shell from south‐east Asia, (2) importation of olive cake pellets from Spain and (3) growing either willow or (4) Miscanthus in the vicinity of the power stations. The impact of each alternative on each of the environmental receptors proposed in the SEA Directive was first quantified before the data were normalized on either an Irish, regional or global scale. Positive environmental impacts were very small compared to the negative environmental impacts for each of the plan alternatives considered. Comparison of normalized indicator values confirmed that the adverse environmental consequences of each plan alternative are concentrated at the location where the biomass is produced. The analysis showed that the adverse environmental consequences of biomass importation are substantially greater than those associated with the use of willow and Miscanthus grown on former grassland. The use of olive cake pellets had a greater adverse environmental effect compared to the use of peat whereas replacement of peat with either willow or Miscanthus feedstocks led to a substantial reduction in environmental pressure. The proposed assessment framework combines the scope of SEA with the quantitative benefits of life cycle assessment and can be used to evaluate the environmental consequences of bioenergy plans.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01143.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_24P</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2299146728</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2299146728</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4303-715847c8ed20ccebc39053116c3af67a341391dc5eb615a79bb2d6ce082e6303</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkF1PwjAUhhejiYj-hyZeb7br1m43JoCCJsSPiB_xpunKGRbGBm0R-PduoiTe2aTpac55n5M8nocIDkh9LqYB4TH3Ccc8CDEhQX0jGmwOvNa-cfhbs5QeeyfWTjFmMSNpyyuerS4nSKInZ6SDiVbouvzUpirnUDpZoI61YG3zQbmRc1hXZoZchZYrWTqdb5H7AAR_Inq-kMqhKkeZrqAEM9miRSFLe-od5bKwcPbztr1R_3rUu_GH94PbXmfoq4hi6nMSJxFXCYxDrBRkiqY4poQwRWXOuKQRoSkZqxgyRmLJ0ywLx0wBTkJgNaDtne-wC1MtV2CdmFYrU9YbRRimKYkYD5N6KtlNKVNZayAXC6Pn0mwFwaJRK6aisSYag6JRK77Vik0dvdxF17qA7b9zYtDrdpuyBvg7gLYONnuANDPBOOWxeL0biLew__JAr97FI_0COkuQbA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2299146728</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Using a Strategic Environmental Assessment framework to quantify the environmental impact of bioenergy plans</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Collection</source><creator>Finnan, John ; Styles, David ; Fitzgerald, Joanne ; Connolly, John ; Donnelly, Alison</creator><creatorcontrib>Finnan, John ; Styles, David ; Fitzgerald, Joanne ; Connolly, John ; Donnelly, Alison</creatorcontrib><description>Renewable energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets are driving an acceleration in the use of bioenergy resources. The environmental impact of national and regional development plans must be assessed in compliance with the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2001/42/EC). Here, we quantify the environmental impact of an Irish Government bioenergy plan to replace 30% of peat used in three peat‐burning power stations, located within the midlands region, with biomass. Four plan alternatives for supplying biomass to the power plant were considered in this study: (1) importation of palm kernel shell from south‐east Asia, (2) importation of olive cake pellets from Spain and (3) growing either willow or (4) Miscanthus in the vicinity of the power stations. The impact of each alternative on each of the environmental receptors proposed in the SEA Directive was first quantified before the data were normalized on either an Irish, regional or global scale. Positive environmental impacts were very small compared to the negative environmental impacts for each of the plan alternatives considered. Comparison of normalized indicator values confirmed that the adverse environmental consequences of each plan alternative are concentrated at the location where the biomass is produced. The analysis showed that the adverse environmental consequences of biomass importation are substantially greater than those associated with the use of willow and Miscanthus grown on former grassland. The use of olive cake pellets had a greater adverse environmental effect compared to the use of peat whereas replacement of peat with either willow or Miscanthus feedstocks led to a substantial reduction in environmental pressure. The proposed assessment framework combines the scope of SEA with the quantitative benefits of life cycle assessment and can be used to evaluate the environmental consequences of bioenergy plans.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1757-1693</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1757-1707</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01143.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Acceleration ; Acidification ; Alternative energy sources ; Biodiversity ; Biomass ; Biomass burning ; Burning ; Climate change ; Cultural heritage ; Electric power generation ; Emissions ; Environmental assessment ; Environmental effects ; Environmental impact ; Eutrophication ; Fossil fuels ; Grasslands ; Greenhouse effect ; Greenhouse gases ; Importation ; Industrial plant emissions ; Life cycle analysis ; Life cycle assessment ; Life cycles ; Methods ; Miscanthus ; olive cake ; palm kernel ; Peat ; Pellets ; Power plants ; Raw materials ; Receptors ; Reduction ; Regional analysis ; Regional development ; Regional planning ; Renewable energy ; Renewable resources ; Strategic Environmental Assessment ; Willow</subject><ispartof>Global change biology. Bioenergy, 2012-05, Vol.4 (3), p.311-329</ispartof><rights>2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</rights><rights>2012. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4303-715847c8ed20ccebc39053116c3af67a341391dc5eb615a79bb2d6ce082e6303</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4303-715847c8ed20ccebc39053116c3af67a341391dc5eb615a79bb2d6ce082e6303</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1757-1707.2011.01143.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1757-1707.2011.01143.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,11561,27923,27924,45573,45574,46051,46475</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Fj.1757-1707.2011.01143.x$$EView_record_in_Wiley-Blackwell$$FView_record_in_$$GWiley-Blackwell</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Finnan, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Styles, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fitzgerald, Joanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Connolly, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donnelly, Alison</creatorcontrib><title>Using a Strategic Environmental Assessment framework to quantify the environmental impact of bioenergy plans</title><title>Global change biology. Bioenergy</title><addtitle>Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy</addtitle><description>Renewable energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets are driving an acceleration in the use of bioenergy resources. The environmental impact of national and regional development plans must be assessed in compliance with the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2001/42/EC). Here, we quantify the environmental impact of an Irish Government bioenergy plan to replace 30% of peat used in three peat‐burning power stations, located within the midlands region, with biomass. Four plan alternatives for supplying biomass to the power plant were considered in this study: (1) importation of palm kernel shell from south‐east Asia, (2) importation of olive cake pellets from Spain and (3) growing either willow or (4) Miscanthus in the vicinity of the power stations. The impact of each alternative on each of the environmental receptors proposed in the SEA Directive was first quantified before the data were normalized on either an Irish, regional or global scale. Positive environmental impacts were very small compared to the negative environmental impacts for each of the plan alternatives considered. Comparison of normalized indicator values confirmed that the adverse environmental consequences of each plan alternative are concentrated at the location where the biomass is produced. The analysis showed that the adverse environmental consequences of biomass importation are substantially greater than those associated with the use of willow and Miscanthus grown on former grassland. The use of olive cake pellets had a greater adverse environmental effect compared to the use of peat whereas replacement of peat with either willow or Miscanthus feedstocks led to a substantial reduction in environmental pressure. The proposed assessment framework combines the scope of SEA with the quantitative benefits of life cycle assessment and can be used to evaluate the environmental consequences of bioenergy plans.</description><subject>Acceleration</subject><subject>Acidification</subject><subject>Alternative energy sources</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Biomass burning</subject><subject>Burning</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Cultural heritage</subject><subject>Electric power generation</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Environmental assessment</subject><subject>Environmental effects</subject><subject>Environmental impact</subject><subject>Eutrophication</subject><subject>Fossil fuels</subject><subject>Grasslands</subject><subject>Greenhouse effect</subject><subject>Greenhouse gases</subject><subject>Importation</subject><subject>Industrial plant emissions</subject><subject>Life cycle analysis</subject><subject>Life cycle assessment</subject><subject>Life cycles</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Miscanthus</subject><subject>olive cake</subject><subject>palm kernel</subject><subject>Peat</subject><subject>Pellets</subject><subject>Power plants</subject><subject>Raw materials</subject><subject>Receptors</subject><subject>Reduction</subject><subject>Regional analysis</subject><subject>Regional development</subject><subject>Regional planning</subject><subject>Renewable energy</subject><subject>Renewable resources</subject><subject>Strategic Environmental Assessment</subject><subject>Willow</subject><issn>1757-1693</issn><issn>1757-1707</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkF1PwjAUhhejiYj-hyZeb7br1m43JoCCJsSPiB_xpunKGRbGBm0R-PduoiTe2aTpac55n5M8nocIDkh9LqYB4TH3Ccc8CDEhQX0jGmwOvNa-cfhbs5QeeyfWTjFmMSNpyyuerS4nSKInZ6SDiVbouvzUpirnUDpZoI61YG3zQbmRc1hXZoZchZYrWTqdb5H7AAR_Inq-kMqhKkeZrqAEM9miRSFLe-od5bKwcPbztr1R_3rUu_GH94PbXmfoq4hi6nMSJxFXCYxDrBRkiqY4poQwRWXOuKQRoSkZqxgyRmLJ0ywLx0wBTkJgNaDtne-wC1MtV2CdmFYrU9YbRRimKYkYD5N6KtlNKVNZayAXC6Pn0mwFwaJRK6aisSYag6JRK77Vik0dvdxF17qA7b9zYtDrdpuyBvg7gLYONnuANDPBOOWxeL0biLew__JAr97FI_0COkuQbA</recordid><startdate>201205</startdate><enddate>201205</enddate><creator>Finnan, John</creator><creator>Styles, David</creator><creator>Fitzgerald, Joanne</creator><creator>Connolly, John</creator><creator>Donnelly, Alison</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201205</creationdate><title>Using a Strategic Environmental Assessment framework to quantify the environmental impact of bioenergy plans</title><author>Finnan, John ; Styles, David ; Fitzgerald, Joanne ; Connolly, John ; Donnelly, Alison</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4303-715847c8ed20ccebc39053116c3af67a341391dc5eb615a79bb2d6ce082e6303</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Acceleration</topic><topic>Acidification</topic><topic>Alternative energy sources</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Biomass burning</topic><topic>Burning</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Cultural heritage</topic><topic>Electric power generation</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Environmental assessment</topic><topic>Environmental effects</topic><topic>Environmental impact</topic><topic>Eutrophication</topic><topic>Fossil fuels</topic><topic>Grasslands</topic><topic>Greenhouse effect</topic><topic>Greenhouse gases</topic><topic>Importation</topic><topic>Industrial plant emissions</topic><topic>Life cycle analysis</topic><topic>Life cycle assessment</topic><topic>Life cycles</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Miscanthus</topic><topic>olive cake</topic><topic>palm kernel</topic><topic>Peat</topic><topic>Pellets</topic><topic>Power plants</topic><topic>Raw materials</topic><topic>Receptors</topic><topic>Reduction</topic><topic>Regional analysis</topic><topic>Regional development</topic><topic>Regional planning</topic><topic>Renewable energy</topic><topic>Renewable resources</topic><topic>Strategic Environmental Assessment</topic><topic>Willow</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Finnan, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Styles, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fitzgerald, Joanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Connolly, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donnelly, Alison</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Global change biology. Bioenergy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Finnan, John</au><au>Styles, David</au><au>Fitzgerald, Joanne</au><au>Connolly, John</au><au>Donnelly, Alison</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Using a Strategic Environmental Assessment framework to quantify the environmental impact of bioenergy plans</atitle><jtitle>Global change biology. Bioenergy</jtitle><addtitle>Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy</addtitle><date>2012-05</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>311</spage><epage>329</epage><pages>311-329</pages><issn>1757-1693</issn><eissn>1757-1707</eissn><abstract>Renewable energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets are driving an acceleration in the use of bioenergy resources. The environmental impact of national and regional development plans must be assessed in compliance with the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2001/42/EC). Here, we quantify the environmental impact of an Irish Government bioenergy plan to replace 30% of peat used in three peat‐burning power stations, located within the midlands region, with biomass. Four plan alternatives for supplying biomass to the power plant were considered in this study: (1) importation of palm kernel shell from south‐east Asia, (2) importation of olive cake pellets from Spain and (3) growing either willow or (4) Miscanthus in the vicinity of the power stations. The impact of each alternative on each of the environmental receptors proposed in the SEA Directive was first quantified before the data were normalized on either an Irish, regional or global scale. Positive environmental impacts were very small compared to the negative environmental impacts for each of the plan alternatives considered. Comparison of normalized indicator values confirmed that the adverse environmental consequences of each plan alternative are concentrated at the location where the biomass is produced. The analysis showed that the adverse environmental consequences of biomass importation are substantially greater than those associated with the use of willow and Miscanthus grown on former grassland. The use of olive cake pellets had a greater adverse environmental effect compared to the use of peat whereas replacement of peat with either willow or Miscanthus feedstocks led to a substantial reduction in environmental pressure. The proposed assessment framework combines the scope of SEA with the quantitative benefits of life cycle assessment and can be used to evaluate the environmental consequences of bioenergy plans.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01143.x</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 1757-1693
ispartof Global change biology. Bioenergy, 2012-05, Vol.4 (3), p.311-329
issn 1757-1693
1757-1707
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2299146728
source Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Collection
subjects Acceleration
Acidification
Alternative energy sources
Biodiversity
Biomass
Biomass burning
Burning
Climate change
Cultural heritage
Electric power generation
Emissions
Environmental assessment
Environmental effects
Environmental impact
Eutrophication
Fossil fuels
Grasslands
Greenhouse effect
Greenhouse gases
Importation
Industrial plant emissions
Life cycle analysis
Life cycle assessment
Life cycles
Methods
Miscanthus
olive cake
palm kernel
Peat
Pellets
Power plants
Raw materials
Receptors
Reduction
Regional analysis
Regional development
Regional planning
Renewable energy
Renewable resources
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Willow
title Using a Strategic Environmental Assessment framework to quantify the environmental impact of bioenergy plans
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T16%3A38%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_24P&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Using%20a%20Strategic%20Environmental%20Assessment%20framework%20to%20quantify%20the%20environmental%20impact%20of%20bioenergy%20plans&rft.jtitle=Global%20change%20biology.%20Bioenergy&rft.au=Finnan,%20John&rft.date=2012-05&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=311&rft.epage=329&rft.pages=311-329&rft.issn=1757-1693&rft.eissn=1757-1707&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01143.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_24P%3E2299146728%3C/proquest_24P%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2299146728&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true