Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
248
Ever since the first oil crisis in 1973, biomass has been considered
and in some cases promoted as an alternative source of energy to fossil
fuels. Because of the transport sectors almost exclusive dependence on
oil, particular attention has been given to the potential use of biomass as
the basis for production of an alternative (and renewable) motor vehicle
fuel the biofuel (EC, 2001a). In fact, due to the increasing mobility of
people and things, the transport sector accounts for more than 30% of final
energy consumption in the European Community and is expanding a
trend which is bound to increase, along with carbon dioxide emissions
(EC, 2001a).
Biofuels are originated from plant oils, sugar beets, cereals, organic
waste and the processing of biomass. Sugar beets, cereals and other crops
can be fermented to produce alcohol (bioethanol), to be used in gasoline
engines. Plant oils (colza, soybean, sunflower, etc.) can be converted into a
diesel substitute. The most important liquid biofuels used for
transportation are:
i) Ethanol or its derivative Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) for
spark ignition (gasoline) engines , which can be produced from sugar
beet, cereals and other crops;
ii) Rapeseed Methyl Ester (RME) and Sunflower Methyl Ester (SME)
for diesel engines , which are produced from rapeseed and sunflower
oils, respectively.
Ethanol can either be used as a component in gasoline, as motor fuel in
pure form, or as a gasoline component after being converted to Ethyl
Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) through reaction with isobutene (a refining
by-product). Methyl esters can either be used in a mixture with
conventional diesel or burnt as pure biodiesel. Blends of up to 15% for
gasoline and 5% for diesel could be used by road vehicles in general
without them needing significant changes. Vehicles that can burn "pure"
biofuel are likely to remain largely limited to captive fleets, such as public
transport and taxis, for some years.
The main regions responsible for the production of liquid biofuels are
Brazil, the USA and Europe. Biofuel production and utilization varies
enormously throughout the European Union, but a remarkable increase of
93% in production was recorded between 1997 and 1999 (EC, 2001a).
However, only six Member States make any real contribution to the total
European biofuel production (EC, 2001a). France has the leading position,
with a production of almost 400 thousand tons in 2000, with two types of
biofuels being actually produced: ETBE (extracted from wheat and sugar
beet) and RME (ONIOL, 2001).
The main reasons which motivate the adoption of renewable fuels in
the transportation sector are both security of supply the transport sector
249
sugar beet
wheat
249333
124667
rapeseed
Total
387507
387507
374000
250
duty is to make biofuels competitive, since they cost about 300 more per
1000 litres of diesel1. According to the EC, biofuels only compete with
petroleum-based fuels if the oil reaches the price of 70 per barrel.
Economies of scale should reduce this value to about 55 per barrel as
bigger and more efficient units of biofuel production are running (LvyCouveihnes, 2000).
It should be also noted that biofuel commercialization carries other
disadvantages, such as the need to develop new harvesting methods,
constraints on the availability of agricultural feedstock, different land use
options and, in some cases, a lower LHV (Lower Heating Value2), in
comparison with liquid petroleum fuels. In addition, technical difficulties
have to be assessed, such as adjustments of refuelling infrastructures,
minor engine modifications (e.g., fuel injection systems), different
humidity and lubricant oil affinities, among others (Beer et al., 2001).
However, the most controversial issue concerning biofuels promotion
remains the balance of environmental benefit from biofuels when
compared to their fossil fuel equivalents. On one hand, several studies
have concluded that there is an overall final assessment in favour of
biofuel, especially in what concerns greenhouse effect and resource
depletion (Beer et al., 2001, Reinhardt and Jungk, 2001, Calzoni et al.,
2000). On the other hand, according to Calzoni et al. (2000) and Ecobilan
(1999), the comparison of biofuels to their fossil fuel equivalents exhibits
higher environmental impacts for some categories, namely eutrophication,
human toxicity and acidification.
The conflicting views about the balance of environmental benefit from
biofuels have often been mentioned. Some studies, for example ESCEC
(2001), which has analyzed the before-mentioned EC proposal directives,
claim that it is vital to have the best possible information on this aspect and
it needs further study. Others, for example Calzoni et al. (2000), which
promote the environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology to
assess the environmental effects of various biofuels in eight European
countries from 1998 to 2000, and state that for certain biofuels and impact
categories, the differences between countries are relatively small, while for
others they are significantly large. Furthermore, Calzoni et al. (2000) claim
that a final environmental assessment in favour or against a particular fuel
cannot be carried out in general terms.
This figure results from the fact that 1100 litres of biodiesel replace 1000 litres
of normal diesel and 1000 litres of bioethanol replace 1000 litres of petrol
according to the blending conditions authorized in the EU.
LHV stands for lower heating value, which should be distinguished from higher
heating value (HHV). They represent two alternative ways of denoting the
energy content of fuels. The LHV assumes that all the H2O resulting from the
fuel combustion is in the vapour phase.
251
This introduction has so far described so far the most important issues
associated with biofuels and, in particular, those raised by fossil fuel
substitution for biofuels. The economic question that emerges is: at which
exact level the promotion of biofuels can be justified? and how does one
determine the exact amount of subsidies to be allocated for alternative
biofuel production chains? In particular, the question often raised by the
economists concerns the efficient allocation of the amount of subsidies
among biofuel chains through tax exemptions to the biofuel processors.
However, besides the economic dimension, there are other criteria,
concerning social, environmental and energy aspects that need to be
assessed simultaneously, with the optimal decision depending upon the
focus and priorities of the decision maker.
To facilitate this on the practical level it is, therefore, necessary to
adopt the appropriate approaches and to develop tools that would help
decision-makers understand the trade-offs between these disparate criteria
in different situations. This paper proposes an integrated decision-support
model to be used for the optimization of bioenergy systems. The model
combines the mathematical programming framework of partial equilibrium
microeconomic models with the environmental Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) framework. The entire life-cycle is considered (as well as its
interactions with the rest of the economical/ecological system). Section 2
gives an overall view of the methodology, including the mathematical
programming framework. The implementation of this modelling approach
to the French biofuel production systems is discussed on section 3, where a
systemic description of the alternative biofuel production schemes is done.
All the biofuel chains compete, on one hand, for the agricultural land and,
on the other, for the transportation fuel market, assuming diesel and
gasoline demand is exogenously fixed. Section 4 presents multicriteria
analysis and discusses the preliminary findings. Conclusions and remarks
for further perspectives close the paper.
2. Mathematical Programming Methodology
This section describes the methodology which is adapted in this study
to be used as a decision-support tool in the optimization of bioenergy
systems. Firstly, the antecedents of this integrated methodology are
surveyed. Secondly, the main characteristics are discussed and, finally, the
mathematics is briefly described. The proposed integrated methodology
has been designated by Life Cycle Activity Analysis (LCAA), being based
on the integration of Activity Analysis a well-known procedure in
economics with the environmental Life Cycle Assessment methodology,
which aims to quantify the environmental impacts of a product from
cradle to grave. A more detailed description of LCAA can be found in
Freire and Thore (2002) and different applications, namely bottled water,
scrap tires and plastic panels mounted on electronic equipment, are
252
253
chain and to solve for optimal economic (e.g. production levels or profit)
and environmental performance (e.g. environmental impacts).
Depending on the type of applications and problems to be addressed,
different types of models can be formulated. For example, many
alternative objective functions can be specified (or even a multi-objective
approach) using linear and non-linear programming techniques. A
simplified version is presented below as an illustrative example of the type
of programming models that can be formulated. This version includes the
possibility of recovery from the foreground to the background. These
concepts proposed within the environmental systems analysis theory are
very useful since they help to distinguish between unit processes of direct
interest in the study (foreground), and other operations with which they
exchange materials and energy (background) (Clift et al. 1999, 2000). In
more detail, the foreground may be defined as the endogenous part of the
production chain, which includes the set of processes whose selection or
mode of operation is affected directly by the decisions of the study. The
background denotes the exogenous parts of the production chain,
comprising all other processes that interact directly with the foreground
system, usually by supplying material or energy to the foreground or
receiving material and energy from it.
The LCAA model uses an input-output format. The superscripts which
are employed together with the notation described below are: P, primary
goods, I, intermediate goods, F, final goods and E, environmental goods:
A
matrix of input coefficients; each element denotes the quantity
of an input required to operate an activity at unit level;
B
matrix of output coefficients; each element is the quantity of
an output obtained when an activity is operated at unit level;
c
row vector of unit costs of operating the various activities, it is
known and given;
d
column vector of final demand, it is known and given;
D
matrix of unit environmental burdens; each element is the
environmental burden generated in the upstream processing,
transportation and manufacture of one unit of primary goods;
g
vector of environmental goals defined in terms of burdens;
p
row vector of unit prices of intermediate goods supplied from
the foreground to the background;
r
row vector of unit prices of final goods;
q
row vector of unit costs of primary goods;
w
column vector of supply levels of primary goods, such as
material and energy from the background system;
x
column vector of unknown activity levels;
y
column vector of unknown levels of intermediate goods
254
0
(-AI + BI)x y
=
0
BFx
g
(-AE + BE)x + Dw Dy
0
x, y, w
where rx is the revenue of final goods, cx represents the total costs of
operating the activities x, qw is the total cost of primary goods and py
accounts for the net revenue (or net cost) of sub-products or recovered
goods, being intermediate exported to the exogenous part of the model.
A and B are matrices of input and output coefficients, respectively. w
represents a column vector of supply levels of primary goods, such as
material and energy from the background system.
In this example, the crucial feature of the formulation is the
environmental constraint: (-AE + BE)x + Dw Dy g, which requires that
the environmental burdens do not exceed a vector of environmental goals,
g, set for example by a policy- or decision-maker. The model calculates
the total accumulated environmental burdens over the entire life cycle of
the product, including the indirect environmental burdens of primary
goods arising in the background. Thus, the total environmental burdens
arising over the life cycle of the products are equal to the sum of the
foreground (direct) burdens, (AE + BE) x, and the background (indirect)
burdens, Dw, minus the avoided burdens (for example, associated with
intermediate products exported to the foreground), that is Dy.
Environmental burden data characterizing typical processes is obtained
from commercial life-cycle databases, for example the software SimaPro,
developed by the PR-consultants Corporation (website: www.pre.nl). In
the case of specific processes (or materials), or when no commercial data
is available, the environmental burden data is calculated based on (i) the
inputs and outputs calculated for the process and (ii) the material/energy
life-cycle data (obtained from the mentioned databases).
3. Case-Study: An application to biofuel systems in France
In 1993, France launched a biofuel tax exemption program. The tax
exemptions from the ITPP (Interior Tax to Petroleum Products) for
biofuels were set at 35.06 /hl for methyl esters and 50.23 /hl for ethanol
255
used in ETBE. In addition, the set aside land obligations introduced by the
revised Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of 1992, which aimed at
controlling the over-production of cereals, created a favourable
environment for growing non-food crops. Hence, the decisive factor that
incited farmers to produce energy crops in sufficient quantities to supply
the biofuel industry was induced. Indeed, energy crops cultivated on set
aside land reached 30% of the total set aside land in 1999 (ONIOL, 2001).
Biofuels produced in France comprise Rapeseed Methyl Esters (RME)
for use in diesel engines and Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) extracted
from wheat and/or sugar beet for use in gasoline engines. In 2000, the total
amount of biofuels production in France was approximately 500 thousand
tons (1.0% of the total national liquid fuel consumption) supplied by a
surface area of 320000 hectares that was cultivated (mainly on land set
aside) by energy dedicated crops (Rozakis et al., 2002). The total
production of ETBE and RME is expected to reach 374 and 387 thousand
tons, respectively, by 2002, as new agreements are allocated to the
industry by the government. The conversion of biomass to biofuels is
concentrated in a few plants, whereas the agricultural raw material is
produced by thousands of farms located in different parts of the country at
varying costs.
The increased importance of the biofuel development program in
France has stimulated our interest in improving previously used modelling
tools, which for example have focused on the decentralized scale in order
to capture the diversity of arable farming to evaluate public policy (Sourie
et al., 1997). A partial equilibrium economic model based on mathematical
programming principles (OSCAR3) was built in order to assist in the micro
and macro-economic analyses of the multi-chain system of the biofuel
industry. This approach, which models the existing biofuel chains in
France sugar beet and wheat to ETBE and rapeseed to RME , implies
the following:
that a comprehensive and systemic method is required (due to the
biofuel chains interdependency), not only at the resource production
level but also at the output level;
that detailed modelling of the agricultural supply is required to take
into account the diversity of the arable farming system, agronomic
constraints and production techniques;
that it is possible to proceed with the economic optimization of the
whole system and to use multicriteria methods to assist in policy
making4. First, a micro-economic analysis of biofuel activity is carried
out in order to estimate agents surpluses. These surpluses as well as
256
the budgetary cost and the deadweight loss of the activity (total
economic welfare) is measured and compared to the environmental
benefits of reductions in the greenhouse gases emissions. All the
aforementioned aspects being part of the stakeholders interests
represent decision criteria.
In the present study, an extension of a micro-economic model of
supply chains with a life cycle environmental-industry model of biofuel
chains is proposed (ETBE from wheat and sugar beet, rapeseed biodiesel).
The French Biofuel chains ETBE (originated from sugar beet and/or
wheat) and RME , can generally be described by the following main
stages:
the agricultural sector, corresponding to a large variety of farms,
facing very different constraints, namely resource, institutional and
agronomic;
the biomass transformation industry, which is comprised by different
sized plants, makes use of various chemical processes, being subjected
to particular technical and economic conditions;
the petroleum industry, responsible for the refining and mixing
processes necessary to obtain the final combustible;
the fuel energy transportation market, in which biofuel is delivered to
be used in gasoline and diesel engines, replacing their fossil fuel
equivalents.
Fig. 1 illustrates the ETBE chain production using ethanol extracted
from sugar beet and/or wheat. The agricultural production of these two
crops is represented in Fig. 1 by two activities: sugar beet cultivation and
wheat cultivation. However, each activity includes several steps, namely:
soil preparation, fertilization, sowing, pesticides application and
harvesting. The production of ethanol from sugar beet represented in Fig.
1 as one activity comprises two steps: i) green juice and green syrup are
produced, by subjecting biomass to a sequence of processes, namely
washing, diffusion, purification and crystallization; ii) ethanol is produced
at the distillery making use of the following processes: fermentation,
distillation and dehydration. The technological processes involved in the
production of ethanol from sugar beet are not self-dedicated to the
production of ethanol. Instead, the whole chain is shared by the alcohol
and sugar industries. Details concerning the technological description and
the mass and energy balances of these steps can be found in great detail in
Poitrat et al. (1998).
Fertilizers
Isobutene
Sugar beet
cultivation
Oil
Fertilizers
Methanol
258
Oil
Coal
Natural gas
ETBE
production
Electricity
Pesticides
Ethanol
production
from sugar
beet
Coal
Natural gas
Wheat
cultivation
257
Ethanol
production
from wheat
Mixture ETBE
- Gasoline
Combustion:
(gasoline
engines)
Foreground system
Background system
Rapeseed
cultivation
Rapeseed oil
production
RME
production
Electricity
Combustion:
(diesel engines)
Foreground system
Pesticides
Cakes
Glycerin
Background system
259
Conventional
gasoline
Isobuthene
18
Sugar beet
wheat
ethanol
13
ETBE
14
Gasoline85%
ETBE15%
Rape
seed
#A
10
Rape
Seed
oil
19
#E
Gasoline market
#B
RME
11
15
Diesel 95%
RME 5%
#D
#C
20
21
#E
Diesel market
Conventional
diesel
260
agricultural sector5 and a biofuel industry model (in this case, the French
multi-chain biofuel system) based on mathematical programming
principles in order to simultaneously optimize economic surplus. The
model proposes a decentralized decision solution based on the agents
behaviour in the respective markets. When industrial capacity is a
continuous variable, OSCAR is a LP (Linear Programming) model.
Otherwise, it becomes a MILP (Mixed Integer Linear Programming) bilevel model, consisting of:
a) The agricultural sector model: A large number of sub-models (each
corresponding to a particular farm) are articulated in a staircase form
enabling the modelling of the agricultural sector. Farmers maximize their
gross margin subject to resource (arable land availability), institutional (set
aside obligation, sugar beet quota) and agronomic (crop rotation)
constraints.
b) Industry sector model: each biofuel chain bB6 can make use of
these available quantities so as to produce biofuels considering technical
and economic conditions of production (including crop prices,
transformation costs, market prices and tax credits granted by
government); capacity rigidities are taken into account and the most recent
plant characteristics have been used. Under these conditions each chain
aims at maximising its own profit.
One or more energy crops can be processed by one or more biofuel
chains. A binary relation R DxB (see footnote 6) indicates which
combinations between energy crops and biofuel chains are considered. The
industrial model includes conditions for the production of these biofuels,
using current conversion technical coefficients, based on a single size
transformation capacity for ETBE and two sizes for wheat-to-ethanol
production units. Ester and ethanol from sugar beet are using existing
capacities. Capacities of transformation units required to process these
quantities, biofuel quantities produced, industry surpluses, and finally total
government spending, can be determined using parameters related to the
biofuel chains examined7.
Selected preliminary input/output data is listed in Table 2. This should
be regarded as a sample from the global model table. This is work on
progress and data is currently being collected, both based on industrial
5
c C index for food crops, (c=1 for sugar beets), dD index for energy crops
( D = {wheat, rape-seed, sugar beet}), ( D = m ), bB index for biofuels (B =
261
#1
#2
Selected Activities
#7
#3
(...)
-142.5
-211.5
-200.0
-2.4
-2.3
-0.4
-15.4
-27.9
-2.5
-23.6
-66.5
-7.92
-168.4
(...)
1.0
-155.4
-191.0
-1.5
-2331.7
#8
(...)
#11
-0.11
-43.7
-9.0
1.0
-3.6
1.0
(...)
1.0
262
1.0
1.5
1.0
(...)
(to be calculated)
(...)
Units
/l
/l
1000hl
1000hl
1000t
M
M
NP t
ODP t
ECA m3g
GWP t
AP t
POCP t
HCL/HCW
TJ LHV
t
M
scenario A
0.24
0.50
784.35
728.93
316
31.25
-156.71
-19.57
-0.01
-25337.84
-51400
-338.59
-16.46
-440.73
-4966.68
-9851.02
8894.12
scenario B
0.36
0.36
623.12
728.93
351.7
82.93
-207.92
-20.75
-0.01
-26763.42
-54400
-358.1
-17.56
-465.27
-5249.75
-10400.3
8945.79
scenario C
0.30
0.41
1463.75
728.93
349.68
67.99
-221.34
-22.61
-0.01
-29324.38
-59400
-391.6
-18.91
-510.16
-5743.44
-11401.83
8930.86
GHG emissions vary from their maximum to minimum technical level in discrete
steps. For each value of GHG emissions and a pair of tax exemptions the model
optimises the system regarding total welfare. Each alternative is specified by:
[parameters] the emissions level, the tax exemption levels, [variables] the
activity levels per biofuel, and [criteria] values that measure the performance of
the alternative with respect to the criteria (annex 1, table 5. Set of alternative
solutions).
263
1600
1400
kt
ethanol_sugar-beet
1200
ethanol_wheat
1000
Rape-seed_Ester
_
s z , z = max h z h zh -
h =1... p
800
600
400
200
with
-5
1.
4
-5
2.
4
-5
3.
4
-5
4.
4
-5
5.
4
-5
6.
4
-5
7.
4
-5
8.
4
-5
9.
4
-6
0.
4
-6
1.
4
-6
2.
4
-6
3.
4
-6
4.
4
-6
5.
4
and
agricultural or producer surplus: The aggregate rent defined as the sum of the
differences between the price at the market equilibrium and the marginal cost of
each single producer.
10
trade-off: the trade-off between two criteria means the amount of achievement
of one criterion that must be sacrificed to gain a unitary increase in the other
one.
11
non-dominated solutions: feasible solutions such that no other feasible solution
can achieve the same or better performance for all the criteria under
consideration and strictly better for at least one criterion.
h zh
j =1
p
z*h
(z n )
h
kt CO2
264
nh
265
revising the aspiration in successive rounds the DM can thus freely and
systematically explore the set of efficient solutions. Table 6 (appendix)
shows the set of alternative solutions (non-dominated).
Table 4. Multicriteria analysis parameters (the coded labels and units of
measurement of performance can be found in the first column of table 3).
to MAX
ideal
anti-ideal
weight
Agr
budget
Eutr
Ozon
ecotx
gheff
acidf
smog
humtx
energy
solid
welfare
103.7
-156.7
-19.6
-0.01
-25311
-51400
-338.5
-16.5
-440
-4963.5
-9838
8966
31.25
-265.7
-24.9
-0.02
-32340
-65400
-431.3
-20.7
-563
-6332.1
-12582
8894
0.0021
0.0014
0.188
100
0.00014
0.00007
0.01077
0.238
0.0081
0.00073
0.00036
0.002
ideal point: the set with all the objectives achieving their optimum value;
anti-ideal point: the set with all the objectives achieving their least-optimum value
in the pay-off table;
distance: position of the aspiration level between the anti-ideal and the ideal point
expressed in percentage;
ex post distance: position of the compromise solution in percentage from
aspiration level.
agr
100
w elfare
budget
80
60
solid
eutr
40
target
20
energy
ozon
humtx
feasible
ecotx
smog
gheff
acidf
266
5. Conclusions
The work herein presented has focused on describing the potential of
an integrated environmental and economic modelling approach to the
optimization of biofuel systems in France. Illustrative results have been
also presented. This approach combines the advantages of the
environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, that tracks the
environmental consequences of a product, process or service from "cradle"
(resource origin) to "grave" (final disposal), with the advantages of using
mathematical programming framework of economic Activity Analysis.
The methodology allows the use of What if? Scenario analysis and
multicriteria analysis. The reference point method has been applied
allowing exploration of the feasible area, thus enhancing dialogue among
stakeholders during the decision-making process. In this manner, it can be
used to design and evaluate alternative packages of environmental strategy
or policy, including programmes of action for the promotion of bioenergy
systems, with the aim of identifying more sustainable practices.
References
Beer, T., Grant, T., Morgan, G., Lapszewicz, J., Anyon, P., Edwards, J.,
Nelson, P., Watson, H. and Williams, D., 2001. Comparison of transport
fuels, Australian Greenhouse Office.
Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., Meeraus, A. and Raman, R. 1998. GAMS. A
user's guide. Washington D.C.: GAMS development corporation.
Calzoni, J, Caspersen, N. Dercas, G. Gaillard, G. Gosse, M. Hanegraaf, L.
Heinzer, N. Jungk, 2000. Bioenergy for Europe: Which ones fit best?
A comparative analysis for the community. Final Report. IFEU (Institute
for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg). Germany.
Clift, R., Doig, A., and Finnveden, G. 2000. The application of Life Cycle
Assessment to integrated solid waste management. Part I - methodology.
Transactions of the Institute of chemicals Engineers 78 part B: 279-289.
Clift, R., Frischknecht, R., Huppes, G., Tillman, A., and Weidema, B.
1999. A summary of the results of the working group on inventory
assessment. SETAC - EUROPE NEWS 10: 14-20.
EC (European Commission), 2000. Green Paper "Towards a European
Strategy for Energy Supply" COM(2000) 769.
EC (European Commission), 2001a. Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of
biofuels for transport.
EC (European Commission), 2001b. Proposal for a Council directive with
regard to the possibility of applying a reduced rate of excise duty on
certain mineral oils containing biofuels and on biofuels.
Ecobilan, 1999. Analyse du cycle de vie du diester Evaluation compare
des filires gazole et diester.
ESCEC (Economic and Social Committee of the European Community),
267
268
31
31
31
75
31
75
31
75
75
75
104
budget
eutr
ozon
ecotx
gheff
acidf
smog
humtx
energy
solid
welfare
a1
a2
a3
a16
a17
a18
a19
a20
a21
a22
a23
a24
a25
a26
a27
a28
a29
a30
a31
a32
a33
a34
alternative #
104
-24.86
-19.59
-19.59
-19.59
-19.57
-19.59
-19.57
-19.59
-19.57
-19.57
-19.57
-24.86
NP t
eutr
-0.0200
-0.0100
-0.0100
-0.0100
-0.0100
-0.0100
-0.0100
-0.0100
-0.0100
-0.0100
-0.0100
-0.0200
ODP t
ozon
-65400
-51400
-51400
-51400
-51400
-51400
-51400
-51400
-51400
-51400
-51400
-65400
GWP t
gheff
-431.23
-338.45
-338.45
-338.45
-338.59
-338.45
-338.59
-338.45
-338.59
-338.59
-338.59
-431.23
AP t
acidf
smog
270
-20.73
-16.53
-16.53
-16.53
-16.46
-16.53
-16.46
-16.53
-16.46
-16.46
-16.46
-20.73
POCP t
-32320.9
-25310.96
-25310.96
-25310.96
-25337.84
-25310.96
-25337.84
-25310.96
-25337.84
-25337.84
-25337.84
-32320.9
ECA m3g
ecotx
energy
-562.54
-440.15
-440.15
-440.15
-440.73
-440.15
-440.73
-440.15
-440.73
-440.73
-440.73
-562.54
-6329.25
-4963.49
-4963.49
-4963.49
-4966.68
-4963.49
-4966.68
-4963.49
-4966.68
-4966.68
-4966.68
-6329.25
HCL/HCW TJ LHV
humtx
defEst
/l ester
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
agr
M
31
33
35
75
78
80
83
85
88
90
92
94
95
97
99
101
102
104
53
55
57
59
budget
eutr
NP t
M
-157
-19.57
-164
-19.95
-171
-20.32
-197
-19.59
-201
-19.97
-204
-20.36
-208
-20.75
-212
-21.13
-215
-21.52
-221
-21.9
-228
-22.28
-235
-22.65
-243
-23.02
-250
-23.4
-257
-23.77
-260
-24.13
-263
-24.5
-266
-24.86
-179
-19.57
-186
-19.95
-192
-20.32
-196
-20.71
-265.7
-196.95
-196.95
-196.95
-156.71
-196.95
-156.71
-196.95
-156.71
-156.71
-156.71
-265.7
agr budget
agr
269
-12572.38
-9838.52
-9838.52
-9838.52
-9851.02
-9838.52
-9851.02
-9838.52
-9851.02
-9851.02
-9851.02
-12572.38
solid
8966.77
8938.57
8938.57
8938.57
8894.21
8938.57
8894.21
8938.57
8894.21
8894.21
8894.21
8966.77
welfare
a1
a2
a3
a16
a17
a18
a19
a20
a21
a22
a23
a24
a25
a26
a27
a28
a29
a30
a31
a32
a33
a34
6
7
5
2
1
7
3
8
5
2
7
5
2
9
7
6
5
3
2
alternative #
271
ozon
ODP t
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
ecotx
ECA m3g
-25338
-25849
-26360
-25311
-25795
-26279
-26763
-27248
-27732
-28226
-28737
-29248
-29759
-30270
-30782
-31295
-31808
-32321
-25338
-25849
-26352
-26845
gheff
acidf
GWP t
AP t
-51400
-339
-52400
-345
-53400
-352
-51400
-338
-52400
-345
-53400
-352
-54400
-358
-55400
-365
-56400
-371
-57400
-378
-58400
-385
-59400
-391
-60400
-398
-61400
-405
-62400
-411
-63400
-418
-64400
-425
-65400
-431
-51400
-339
-52400
-345
-53400
-352
-54400
-359
smog
humtx energy
POCP t HCL/HCWTJ LHV
-16.46
-441
-4967
-16.73
-450
-5065
-17.01
-459
-5164
-16.53
-440
-4964
-16.87
-449
-5059
-17.21
-457
-5154
-17.56
-465
-5250
-17.9
-474
-5345
-18.24
-482
-5441
-18.56
-491
-5537
-18.84
-500
-5636
-19.11
-509
-5734
-19.39
-518
-5833
-19.66
-526
-5932
-19.93
-535
-6030
-20.2
-544
-6130
-20.46
-554
-6230
-20.73
-563
-6329
-16.46
-441
-4967
-16.73
-450
-5065
-17.03
-459
-5163
-17.35
-467
-5259
solid
t
-9851
-10051
-10251
-9839
-10026
-10213
-10400
-10588
-10775
-10967
-11167
-11366
-11566
-11766
-11966
-12168
-12370
-12572
-9851
-10051
-10247
-10438
welfare
M
8894
8896
8898
8939
8941
8944
8946
8948
8951
8953
8955
8957
8959
8960
8962
8964
8965
8967
8916
8918
8920
8922