Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A2-47462

May 2010

Life Cycle Assessment Comparing 

the Use of Jatropha Biodiesel in 

the Indian Road and Rail Sectors

Michael Whitaker

Symbiotic Engineering

Boulder, Colorado

Garvin Heath

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Golden, Colorado
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A2-47462

May 2010

Life Cycle Assessment Comparing 

the Use of Jatropha Biodiesel in 

the Indian Road and Rail Sectors

Michael Whitaker

Symbiotic Engineering

Boulder, Colorado

Garvin Heath

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Golden, Colorado

Prepared under Task No. BB07.9610
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
iii

Acknowledgements

The authors would first like to thank our local partner for this work, the Indian Oil Corporation 

Ltd. (IOC), and specifically the contributions of Dr. Rakesh Sarin and Dr. Suresh Puri in 

providing helpful guidance that focused our modeling on the large-scale Jatropha biodiesel 

systems that the Indian government and the IOC envision. Margaret Mann and Anelia Milbrandt, 

both of NREL, lent their expertise in life cycle assessment modeling and Jatropha production, 

and Dr. Mark Pitterle of Symbiotic Engineering aided in the literature survey required to 

benchmark the results. Two reviewers also offered many useful comments that have improved 

the quality and clarity of communication: Jennifer Baka of Yale University and Yimin Zhang of

NREL. Finally, we would like to thank the sponsors of this work, the Office of Biomass 

Programs within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the U.S. Department 

of Energy. 
iv

Abbreviations and Nomenclature

B5 5% biodiesel blend with diesel 

B10 10% biodiesel blend with diesel 

B20 20% biodiesel blend with diesel 

B100 100% biodiesel (neat biodiesel)

biodiesel biodiesel produced from Jatropha oil using base-catalyzed 

transesterification

CH Switzerland

CH4 methane

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent in terms of global warming potential 

considering other greenhouse gases

diesel convention petroleum diesel

ETp potential evapotranspiration

GB United Kingdom

GHG greenhouse gas

GTK gross tonne-kilometer

GWP global warming potential

IOC Indian Oil Corporation, Ltd.

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IR Indian Railways

Jatropha Jatropha curcas L.

KCl potassium chloride

LCA life cycle assessment

LCI life cycle inventory

LCIA life cycle impact assessment

MSRTH Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport, and Highways

mtCO2e metric tonne carbon dioxide equivalent 

N2O nitrous oxide

NER net energy ratio

NEV net energy value
v

NG Nigeria

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

OCE oceanic

pkm passenger kilometer traveled

Planning Commission Planning Commission, Government of India

RER Europe

RME Middle East

S system process

T&D transmission and distribution of electricity

tonne metric ton

U unit process

UCTE Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity 

UCPTE Union for the Co-ordination of Production and Transmission of 

Electricity (predecessor to UCTE)

U. S. United States

VIZAG Visakhapatnam Oil Refinery

vkm vehicle kilometer traveled
vi

Abstract

This life cycle assessment of Jatropha biodiesel production and use evaluates the net greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emission (not considering land-use change), net energy value (NEV), and net 

petroleum consumption impacts of substituting Jatropha biodiesel for conventional petroleum 

diesel in India. Several blends of biodiesel with petroleum diesel are evaluated for the railfreight, rail-passenger, road-freight, and road-passenger transportation sectors that currently rely 

heavily on petroleum diesel. For Jatropha cultivation, processing, and use under base case 

conditions, combustion of B20 results in a net reduction in life cycle GHG emissions and 

petroleum consumption of 14% and 17%, respectively, and a NEV increase of 58% compared 

with the use of 100% petroleum diesel. While the road-passenger transportation sector provides 

the greatest benefits in the evaluated metrics per 1000 gross tonne kilometers, the road-freight 

sector eventually provides the greatest absolute benefits owing to substantially higher projected 

utilization by year 2020. Nevertheless, introduction of biodiesel to the rail sector might present 

the fewest logistic and capital expenditure challenges in the near term. Sensitivity analyses 

confirmed that the evaluated sustainability benefits are maintained under multiple plausible 

cultivation, processing, and distribution scenarios. However, the sustainability of any individual 

Jatropha plantation will depend on site-specific conditions and most importantly on seed yield.
vii

Executive Summary

Issues

India’s transportation sector relies heavily on petroleum-based fuels that account for over 95% of 

the transportation sector’s energy use (Planning Commission 2003) with over 70% of petroleumbased fuels imported (Sarin 2008a). Moreover, combustion of petroleum-based fuels in India’s 

transportation sector accounts for approximately 6% of the country’s annual greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions (Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2008). In 2003, the Planning 

Commission recommended increasing the use of biodiesel blended with petroleum diesel in 

transportation fuels with the goal of reducing GHG emissions and petroleum consumption. The 

Planning Commission of the Government of India (Planning Commission) selected Jatropha 

curcas L. (Jatropha) as the most suitable plant for the production of biodiesel in India because of 

its high oil-yielding seeds and ability to grow in a variety of agro-climatic conditions (Planning 

Commission 2003). Also in 2003, the Indian Oil Corporation, Ltd. (IOC) signed a memorandum 

of understanding with Indian Railways (IR) to explore the use of biodiesel in the Indian rail 

system (Ministry of Railways 2003). IR offered land to the IOC for the cultivation of Jatropha 

trees to produce Jatropha oil that could be extracted and transesterified into biodiesel for use in 

IR locomotives. Jatropha-based biodiesel is poised to provide an increasingly large share of the 

Indian transportation sector’s energy needs, according to the Planning Commission’s 

recommendations and the IOC-IR agreement, perhaps fulfilling a significant fraction of the 20% 

blending target for biodiesel by 2017, as set forth in a 2008 governmental standard and 2009 

National Policy on Biofuels (Padma 2008; Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, 2009). 

Objectives

This study employs life cycle assessment to estimate certain environmental sustainability and 

energy security impacts of substituting petroleum diesel with Jatropha biodiesel blends in the 

Indian transportation sector. Four diesel-consuming vehicle classes are considered—road-freight 

transport, road-passenger transport via buses, rail-freight transport, and rail-passenger 

transport—to determine which class provides the greatest benefits compared to current 

petroleum diesel consumption. Passenger vehicles are not considered in this assessment because 

they are primarily fueled by gasoline. The primary sustainability and energy security metrics 

evaluated are net, life cycle GHG emissions, petroleum consumption, and net energy value 

(NEV). The study seeks to determine the relative reductions in GHG emissions and petroleum 

consumption and changes in NEV for multiple biodiesel blends compared to petroleum diesel, 

and to project potential absolute GHG and petroleum consumption reductions in each of the four 

analyzed transportation sectors for both current conditions (approximated with measured data 

from year 2006) and potential future conditions (approximated with projected data for year 

2020).The base case scenario is modeled after projections from the Planning Commission 

(2003), which envisions a large-scale, centralized Jatropha cultivation and biodiesel production 

system utilizing marginal lands. The impact on results of alternative cultivation and biodiesel 

production scenarios are also evaluated. Finally, to help guide future Jatropha biodiesel research 

and development efforts in India, parametric sensitivity analysis is used to identify the most 

influential input parameters. 

Study Design

This study expands upon a previous study that focused exclusively on the rail sector (Whitaker 

and Heath 2009), and it allows for the determination of which of the four evaluated transport 
viii

modes provides the greatest opportunities for certain sustainability benefits from fuel switching. 

The life cycle system boundary of Jatropha biodiesel examined here includes Jatropha 

cultivation, Jatropha oil extraction, base-catalyzed Jatropha oil transesterification1

Blends of Jatropha biodiesel are compared to petroleum diesel based on three primary metrics: 

net changes in life cycle GHG emissions, net changes in petroleum consumption, and the NEV 

of the fuel production and use. Petroleum displacement is also reported to provide a more direct 

estimation of reductions in petroleum consumption under different biodiesel blend percentages 

compared to the conventional petroleum diesel reference case.

to biodiesel, 

and combustion of blends by volume of 5% (B5), 10% (B10), and 20% (B20) biodiesel in Indian 

locomotives and diesel-fueled buses and trucks. B100 (100% biodiesel or “neat biodiesel”) 

results are also presented for reference. India-specific data were used to the extent they were 

available; close proxies were used where necessary. The petroleum-diesel reference system to 

which the results for Jatropha biodiesel are compared includes consideration of crude oil

extraction and transportation, crude oil refining to diesel fuel, and diesel fuel combustion in 

Indian transport vehicles. The impacts resulting from changes in land use that could be induced 

by either the Jatropha systems or the petroleum systems are not considered in this study.

2

One thousand gross tonnes of goods or passengers hauled one kilometer (1000 gross tonne 

kilometer (GTK)) is the functional unit used to consistently compare those metrics across the 

four transport modes, hereafter referred to as the normalized results. A system lifetime of 20 

years is assumed, with 2 billion GTK transported over that period by each mode. Annual GHG 

emissions and petroleum consumed are also estimated for use in determining the mode with the 

greatest potential for these sustainability benefits, hereafter referred to as the absolute results. 

For comparison with Whitaker 

and Heath (2009) and other references, net energy ratio is also presented even though the NEV is 

a more robust metric (see Section 5.2 for definition of NEV). 

As multiple alternative biodiesel development pathways are plausible, the study developed 

extensive sensitivity analyses, including both scenario sensitivity analyses and parametric 

sensitivity analyses. Alternative scenarios test the impact of changes in land quality, applied 

cultivation practices, and transport distances for Jatropha seeds and processed biodiesel on 

analysis results. One-at-a-time parametric sensitivity analyses test the influence of individual 

input parameters to each of the evaluated metrics.

Seed yield per hectare is a critical parameter in determining the sustainability of Jatropha 

biodiesel production systems, but the literature lacks consensus on reasonable expected seed 

yields. Acquiring accurate estimates of seed yield data is further complicated by the absence of 

published data from large-scale, mature Jatropha plantations in India. The base case scenario for 

this study assumes a dry seed yield of 3.75 tonnes per hectare per year (tonnes/ha-yr) based on 

projections by the Planning Commission of India (2003). This yield value falls within the range 

 1 Transesterification is used in this report to refer to all of the steps involved in the process of converting Jatropha oil 

to biodiesel. In transesterification, an alcohol is reacted with triglyceride oils, forming fatty acid alkyl esters 

(biodiesel) and glycerol. Heat and a strong base catalyst are commonly used to speed the reaction. 2 Petroleum displacement is defined as the difference between life cycle petroleum consumed by the petroleum 

diesel reference case and the life cycle petroleum consumed by a specific biodiesel blend (including the petroleum 

diesel portion). Note that petroleum includes all crude oil-derived products such as gasoline, diesel, and oil 

lubricants, and petroleum displacement is measured in kilograms of crude oil reduced.
ix

of Jatropha seed yield values reported in the literature. For example, in their analysis of Jatropha 

cultivation in West Africa, Ndong and colleagues (2009) assume a base case Jatropha dry seed 

yield of 4.0 tonnes/ha-yr. Similarly, additional studies (Reinhardt et al. 2008 and Jongschaap et 

al. 2007) report observed and projected Jatropha seed yields of greater than 4.0 tonnes/ha-yr 

under good growing conditions. However, many of the references used in this study (Reinhardt 

et al. 2008, Jongschaap et al. 2007, Planning Commission of India 2003) suggest that seed yields 

can be reduced to a range of 1.0-2.5 tonnes/ha-yr under suboptimal growing conditions (e.g. 

inadequate water availability or lack of nutrients).

Due to the variation in seed yield estimates and to the large influence of seed yield on the 

sustainability metrics considered in this study, Section 7.1 contains scenario sensitivity analyses 

that examine the impacts of varying both seed yield and cultivation inputs while Section 7.2 

contains a parametric sensitivity analysis of seed yield to model the impacts of changing only dry 

seed yield under base case conditions. Assuming the same cultivation inputs, maintenance, 

transport, and processing practices as the base case, the model predicts that no GHG emission 

reduction compared to petroleum diesel will be realized if seed yield falls below 1.25 tonnes/

ha-yr. While well correlated data sets for Jatropha seed yield do not exist, current observations of 

Jatropha cultivation in the literature suggest that seed yields below 1.25 tonnes/ha-yr are possible 

if land conditions are poor or if water availability is limited. Therefore, the GHG emission 

reductions reported by this study will be decreased or possibly non-existent if realized seed yield

is less than the base case assumption of this study.
x

Base Case, Normalized Sustainability Metrics of Jatropha Biodiesel

The results of the base case analysis, normalized per 1000 GTK, are summarized in Table ES-1, 

Table ES-2, and Table ES-3. The results suggest that substituting petroleum diesel with Jatropha 

biodiesel yields reductions in both GHG emissions and petroleum consumption that scale with 

the proportion of biodiesel used in the blend. Under base case conditions, Table ES-1 shows that 

substituting petroleum diesel with B5 could reduce GHG emissions by 3.4%, by 14% for B20 

and, for reference, by 72% for B100, compared to the use of petroleum diesel.

As shown in Table ES-2, the NEV of B100 is positive for all modes (useful energy output being 

greater than the cumulative energy inputs), and the NEV of petroleum diesel is negative for all 

modes. Increasing the percentage of biodiesel improves the NEV of the blended fuels by making 

the combined NEVs for the diesel/biodiesel mixes less negative with increases in NEV compared 

to petroleum diesel of 14%, 29%, and 58% for B5, B10, and B20 blends, respectively. For 

comparison to Whitaker and Heath (2009) and to other biofuel LCAs, the base case net energy 

ratio for Jatropha biodiesel (B100) is estimated in this study to be 2.3, meaning that more than 2 

units of energy are produced for every one unit of energy consumed in the production process.

Table ES-1. Comparison of net life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity (kg CO2e/1,000 

GTK) for the base cases for each of the four transport modes evaluated in this study, and the 

percent change from the petroleum diesel baseline*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight 7.9 7.6 7.4 6.8 2.3

Rail Transport–Passenger 13 13 12 11 3.8

Road Transport–Freight 39 37 36 33 11

Road Transport–Passenger 51 49 47 44 15

Percent Change from Diesel** - -3.4% -6.8% -14% -72%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** Percent change from the diesel reference system is constant for all transport modes as it is due to variations in the 

wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement (biodiesel compared to diesel) 

does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent changes reported here may not 

equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to independent rounding. 

Table ES-2. Comparison of net energy value (MJ/1,000 GTK) for the base case for each of the four 

transport modes evaluated in this study, and the percent change from the petroleum diesel baseline*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight -26 -22 -18 -11 52

Rail Transport–Passenger -42 -36 -30 -18 87

Road Transport–Freight -120 -110 -88 -52 250

Road Transport–Passenger -160 -140 -120 -68 340

Percent Change from

Diesel** - 14% 29% 58% 300%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** Percent change from the diesel reference system is constant for all transport modes as it is due to variations in the 

wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement (biodiesel compared to diesel) 

does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent changes reported here may not 

equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to independent rounding.
xi

In terms of petroleum consumed by transport vehicles, Table ES-3 shows that, compared to the 

current situation of petroleum diesel fuel usage, B5 could displace 4.2% of petroleum use, B20 

17% and B100 88%, under the base case conditions evaluated in this study.

Table ES-3. Comparison of net petroleum consumption intensity (kg crude oil/1,000 GTK) and net 

petroleum displacement intensity (kg crude oil/1,000 GTK) for the base case for each of the four 

transport modes evaluated in this study, and the percent change from the petroleum diesel baseline*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 0.30

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity - 0.10 0.21 0.42 2.2

Rail Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.4 0.50

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity - 0.17 0.35 0.70 3.6

Road Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity 12 12 11 10 1.5

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity - 0.51 1.0 2.0 11

Road Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity 16 15 15 13 1.9

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity - 0.67 1.3 2.7 14

Percent Change from Diesel** - -4.2% -8.4% -17% -88%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** Percent change from the diesel reference system is constant for all transport modes as it is due to variations in the 

wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement (biodiesel compared to diesel) 

does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent changes reported here may not 

equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to independent rounding.

Projected, Absolute Sustainability Benefits of Jatropha Biodiesel under the Base 

Case Scenario

Additional insight into the potential benefits regarding certain sustainability and energy security 

attributes from transitioning to Jatropha B20 throughout the transportation sector, as envisioned 

by the Planning Commission (2003), is gained by projecting potential annual savings across all 

four analyzed transportation sectors. Tables ES-4 and ES-5 examine potential annual reductions 

in GHG emissions and crude oil consumption if Jatropha B20 produced under base case 

conditions is fully substituted into each of the four diesel-fueled transportation markets. Diesel 

fuel demand in the years 2006 and 2020 are analyzed to determine the transport modes with the 

greatest potential absolute impact both under current conditions and in the future. These 

projections are not meant to convey the likelihood of achieving the calculated benefits or of 

realizing full market penetration for B20.
xii

Table ES-4. Projected net life cycle GHG-emission reductions for complete substitution of 

petroleum diesel with Jatropha B20 produced under base case conditions in the four transport 

modes analyzed in this study*

Current Conditions 2020

Transport Mode Estimated 

Gross Tonne 

Kilometers

(in billions)

Total GHG 

Emission 

Reductions for 

B20 (mtCO2e)

Estimated 

Gross Tonne 

Kilometers

(in billions)

Total GHG 

Emission 

Reductions for 

B20 (mtCO2e)

Rail Transport–Freight 320 350,000 1,100 1,200,000

Rail Transport–Passenger 230 420,000 420 760,000

Road Transport–Freight 660 3,500,000 4,400 23,000,000

Road Transport–Passenger 1,300 9,100,000 2,100 15,000,000

Total–All Analyzed Modes 2,500 13,000,000 8,000 40,000,000

* Figures rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty. Columns may not sum due to 

independent rounding of each value. Sources for GTK calculations and projections include Ministry of Shipping, Road

Transport, and Highways (2009), Whitaker (2007), Singh (2005), Singh (2008), Ministry of Railways (2008), and 

Planning Commission (2007). See Section 8.3 of this study for details.

As shown in Table ES-4, under current conditions, the greatest absolute reductions in GHG 

emissions can be achieved by substituting B20 for petroleum diesel in the road transport sector 

via passenger buses as buses in India utilize the greatest GTK per year of the four analyzed 

sectors. Potential savings for the road-passenger sector are approximately 9.1 million mt

CO2e/yr, nearly 70% of the total potential absolute savings under current conditions. However, 

by 2020, with a greater share of Indian passenger transport expected to take place in personal 

vehicles and freight-road transport expected to grow rapidly as the economy expands, freightroad transport becomes the most critical sector to target for B20 substitution to maximize 

absolute gains. Projected reductions in freight-road transport comprise over 57% of potential 

absolute 2020 GHG-emission reductions with the combination of road transport freight and 

passenger accounting for over 95% of potential reductions. 

As shown in Table ES-5, similar to GHG-emission reductions, passenger and freight-road 

transport comprise the greatest portions of potential absolute reductions in petroleum 

consumption with road-passenger transport having a greater share under current conditions and 

road-freight transport having a greater share by 2020. Combined, the two road sectors account 

for approximately 93% of potential absolute petroleum consumption reductions under current 

conditions and 98% of potential reductions by 2020. 
xiii

Table ES-5. Projected petroleum displacement for complete substitution of Jatropha B20 

produced under base case conditions for conventional diesel in the four transport modes 

analyzed in this study*

Current Conditions 2020

Transport Mode Estimated 

Annual Gross 

Tonne 

Kilometers

(in billions)

Total 

Petroleum 

Displacement 

for B20 (tonnes 

crude oil)

Estimated 

Annual Gross 

Tonne 

Kilometers

(in billions)

Total 

Petroleum 

Displacement 

for B20 (tonnes 

crude oil)

Rail Transport–Freight 320 130,000 1,100 460,000

Rail Transport–Passenger 230 160,000 420 290,000

Road Transport–Freight 660 1,400,000 4,400 9,000,000

Road Transport–Passenger 1,300 3,500,000 2,100 5,700,000

Total–All Analyzed Modes 2,500 5,200,000 8,000 15,000,000

* Figures rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty. Columns may not sum due to 

independent rounding of each value. Sources for GTK calculations and projections include Ministry of Shipping, Road 

Transport, and Highways (2009), Whitaker (2007), Singh (2005), Singh (2008), Ministry of Railways (2008), and 

Planning Commission (2007). See body of report for details.

In total, the biodiesel requirements for substituting Jatropha B20 for all-petroleum diesel in the 

four transportation sectors analyzed in this study would require cultivation of nearly 5 million 

hectares of land under current conditions and approximately 14 million hectares by 2020 

assuming a biodiesel yield of 1,300-1,400 liters per hectare (in line with the base case 

assumption in this study). The Planning Commission (2003) identified 13.4 million hectares of 

land for potential conversion to Jatropha cultivation with the land varying in quality from waste, 

abandoned, or fallow lands to farmlands requiring protective hedges and under-stocked

forestland. That the amount of land identified by the Planning Commission nearly equals the 

land required for full B20 substitution does not imply a prediction that transitioning such a large, 

diverse and geographically disparate amount of land to Jatropha cultivation would be 

economically, politically and logistically achievable. In addition, transitioning of vegetated land 

to Jatropha cultivation may lead to an increase or decrease in GHG emissions from direct landuse change depending on the local conditions at the plantation site. If determining robust 

estimates of the potential GHG emissions associated with the set of specific land tracts identified 

for Jatropha cultivation is important, then additional research on the topic of GHG emissions 

associated with land use change should be prioritized. Also, these projections do not account for 

population growth, increasing affluence, and other socio-economic and demographic changes 

that could impact the availability of land for Jatropha cultivation. 

Targeting the sector with the greatest absolute benefits may not be the most strategic approach to 

maximizing the benefits of Jatropha biodiesel, as the volume of fuel required may exceed supply, 

financial capital for infrastructure changes are likely limited, and the logistics of fueling vehicles 

in each sector differ. The near-term total substitution of B20 for all-petroleum diesel may be 

most feasible in the rail sector as approximately 370 million liters of biodiesel would be required 

compared to 6.1 billion liters for the road sector. In addition, the rail sector uses relatively few, 

centralized fueling depots. However, the greatest absolute reductions in GHG emissions and 

petroleum consumption for the analyzed transportation sectors are achievable in the passenger 

bus-road transport sector. While requiring a greater investment in fueling infrastructure than the 

rail sector, the presence of centralized bus depots still provides the opportunity to fuel numerous 
xiv

vehicles with B20 from one location while beginning to address the transportation sector with the 

greatest near-term potential absolute reductions. As more biodiesel becomes available and 

fueling infrastructure investments increase, the focus can transition to the availability of roadside 

B20 fueling stations that could provide fuel to the freight-road transportation sector. It is 

anticipated that by 2020 the greatest absolute reductions in both GHG emissions and petroleum 

consumption will be achievable from the substitution of B20 for petroleum diesel in the freightroad sector. 

Sensitivity Analyses

Scenario sensitivity analyses evaluate alternative plausible scenarios for the cultivation, 

processing, transport, and use of Jatropha biodiesel. The base case scenario conditions are based 

on projections by the Planning Commission (2003) that may be considered optimized as they 

anticipate yields of 3,750 kg dry seed/ha and oil contents of 35% by weight on lands that are 

marginal but require moderate maintenance. However, with a program of this scale, it is 

important to analyze whether the substantial benefits for sustainability and energy security 

projected in the base case scenario of this study (Tables ES-1, ES-2, and ES-3) can be 

maintained even if the anticipated cultivation and processing conditions are not met. See Section 

7.1 for a detailed description of the analyzed sensitivity scenarios and their full results. The 

summary results discussed in this section compare GHG emissions and petroleum consumption 

for B100 to conventional diesel for each scenario.

Three alternative cultivation scenarios were explored:

1. “Marginal Land, Low Irrigation” models the impact of reduced yields resulting from 

reduced cultivation inputs on low quality, poorly maintained land.

2. “Marginal Land, High Maintenance” models the impact of cultivating Jatropha on low 

quality land but increasing cultivation inputs to maintain base case yields.

3. “Good Land, High Maintenance” assumes higher than base case yields can be achieved 

by increasing the intensity of cultivation inputs.

The first two scenarios reduce the GHG-emission and petroleum-displacement benefits primarily 

because of the reduced yields, higher cultivation inputs, or both. Nevertheless, the Marginal 

Land, Low Irrigation scenario still realizes GHG-emission reductions of 31% and petroleum 

consumption reductions of 66% compared with conventional diesel. The Marginal Land, High 

Maintenance scenario realizes GHG-emission savings of 59% and petroleum consumption 

savings of 80% compared with conventional diesel. Taken together, results from these two 

scenarios suggest that net life cycle GHG emissions and petroleum consumption levels will 

benefit from cultivation practices that focus on increasing yields and oil content as opposed to 

minimizing cultivation inputs. The Good Land, High Maintenance scenario reinforces the 

importance of achieving high yields by indicating that GHG-emission and petroleum 

consumption reductions for B100 will reach 82% and 93%, respectively, compared with the 

conventional diesel baseline (values greater than the base case reductions of 72% and 88%) if 

increased cultivation inputs are used to achieve high seed yields and oil contents on fertile land. 

In addition to analyzing the alternative cultivation scenarios, this study also analyzed a scenario 

for biodiesel production with larger seed catchment areas and greater distribution distances than 

the base case. Another alternative scenario analyzed the impacts of assuming that Jatropha 
xv

biomass is burned to generate process heat as opposed to the base case assumption of electricity 

production. Both of these alternative scenarios maintain GHG-emission reductions of at least 

70% and petroleum consumption reductions of greater than 85%.

The combined results of the scenario sensitivity analyses suggest that although the base case may 

be somewhat optimized, other plausible scenarios for Jatropha biodiesel production and use also 

yield significant savings in both GHG emissions and petroleum consumption. No analyzed 

scenarios yielded GHG-emission or petroleum consumption increases compared to the allpetroleum baseline, though that outcome might occur under the worst land-use change 

circumstances (e.g., if heavily vegetated lands with significant soil carbon stores were 

transformed for monoculture Jatropha plantations).

Parametric sensitivity analysis provides insight into the relative influence of individual input 

parameters on study results. The parametric analysis confirms that dry seed yield and seed oil 

content (together with biodiesel fuel consumption efficiency in transport vehicles) have the 

greatest influence on all three evaluated metrics.

Limitations

A limitation of this study is that it does not consider the potential impacts of land-use change. 

Two categories of land use change are discussed here: direct and indirect. Direct land use change 

occurs on the land used to cultivate Jatropha. For instance, land is converted from fallow, 

marginal or active use to a Jatropha plantation. Indirect land use change occurs on other land, 

whether domestic or foreign, as a result of the displacement of products produced from the land 

that has been converted to a Jatropha plantation. For instance, if an edible oil seed crop is grown 

on land converted to a Jatropha plantation, then the reduced supply of oil seed could induce a 

different market actor to convert other lands to make up for the lost supply. 

Indirect (market-mediated) land-use change is not likely to be strongly linked to Jatropha 

production under current plans, which envision previously abandoned agricultural or otherwise 

degraded lands as Jatropha production zones (India Planning Commission 2003; Padma 2008; 

Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, 2009). The availability of these lands appears to be 

plentiful and nearly equal to that required to produce enough Jatropha-based biodiesel to displace 

20% of all petroleum diesel in the four transportation sectors analyzed in this study. However, in 

the absence of strictly enforced regulations preventing the use of currently cultivated lands for 

Jatropha plantations, the better economics of higher yields could induce some conversion of 

prime agricultural land to Jatropha plantations. If this were to occur, then indirect land use 

change would become an issue of greater potential significance for altering the GHG benefits of 

Jatropha biodiesel estimated in this study. However, as shown in the sensitivity analyses, the 

decrease in GHG emissions under the “good land, high maintenance” scenario should partially 

offset any impact from indirect land use change. 

Conversion of the Planning Commission-identified lands to Jatropha production could result in 

greater, equal, or lesser soil carbon sequestration depending on the previous level of vegetation 

of the sites (Reinhardt et al. 2008). A bounding estimate based on data from Reinhardt et al. 

(2008) suggests that the maximum direct land-use change GHG emissions under the base case 

conditions of this study would equate to approximately the following percentages of total 20-

year net life cycle GHG emissions: 0.25% for passenger-road transport, 0.33% for freight-road 
xvi

transport, 1.0% for passenger-rail transport, and 1.6% for freight-rail transport. Therefore, the 

conclusions of the current study would not likely change significantly if the impacts of direct 

land-use change were included.

Additionally, this study does not perform an analysis of the feasibility of full market penetration 

of Jatropha biodiesel as B20, the economic viability of cultivating Jatropha only on marginal 

lands, or the potential market for the glycerine co-product as biodiesel production increases. The 

results of this study assume that glycerine is fully utilized as a co-product and that it offsets the 

production of synthetic glycerine. If glycerine co-product benefits are omitted, the analyzed 

sustainability and energy security benefits of Jatropha biodiesel production and use are 

diminished, but the conclusions of the study do not change. For example, omitting glycerine coproduct benefits from the base case analysis scenario decreases the GHG emission benefits of 

B100 compared with the petroleum diesel reference case from a 72% reduction to a 60% 

reduction. Thus, the conclusion that Jatropha biodiesel production and use has a net life cycle 

emission benefit compared with petroleum diesel reference case does not change.

Given the embryonic state of Jatropha research, there is considerable uncertainty in modeling 

Jatropha biodiesel production systems. Therefore, it is advisable to interpret the findings of this 

study as indicative of the direction and scale of impacts relative to the diesel reference system 

rather than accurate point estimates of the magnitude of impacts. Furthermore, given the focus of 

this study on large-scale Indian plantations and biodiesel production processes as well as on the 

use of biodiesel in the Indian transportation sector, the results presented here are not necessarily 

broadly applicable to other locations, other production processes, or other uses. While sensitivity 

analysis has been used to explore the variability in evaluated metrics based on alternative 

cultivation and production scenarios, future research should more comprehensively evaluate 

them to allow deeper insight into their impacts. Nevertheless, agreement between the results of 

this study and some others in the literature was found, suggesting increased confidence in certain 

impact estimates related to life cycle GHG emissions, net energy value, and petroleum

consumption. Other sustainability metrics, such as impacts to soil, air, and water quality and 

impacts to economic and gender equity, were not evaluated in this study, but could be important 

in evaluating the overall sustainability of the production and use of Jatropha biodiesel in India. 

Conclusions

With India’s transportation sector heavily reliant on imported petroleum-based fuels, the 

Planning Commission and the Indian government recommended the increased use of blended 

biodiesel in transportation fleets, and identified Jatropha as a potentially important feedstock. 

IOC and IR are collaborating to increase the use of biodiesel blends in Indian transport vehicles 

with blends of up to B20, and the Ministry of New & Renewable Energy (2009) set a goal of 

using B20 in the transportation sector by 2017. This study evaluated the life cycle GHG 

emissions, net energy value, and petroleum displacement impacts of integrating larger 

percentages of Jatropha-based biodiesel in transport vehicle operations in India and identified the 

parameters that have the greatest impact on selected sustainability metrics of the system. This 

study was designed to evaluate selected environmental sustainability measures of Jatropha 

cultivation, biodiesel production, and biodiesel blend utilization under conditions in India.
xvii

For the base case considered, this study found that, per gross-tonne kilometer traveled, a blend of 

B20 would reduce GHG emissions by 14%, reduce petroleum consumption by 17%, and increase 

the net energy value by 58% compared with the conventional diesel baseline. Using sensitivity 

analyses, this study also identified dry seed yield, seed oil content, and biodiesel fuel 

consumption efficiency as the individual parameters with the greatest influence on all three of

the sustainability metrics evaluated. Additionally, this study confirmed that reductions in the 

GHG emissions and petroleum consumption are maintained under a range of plausible biodiesel 

cultivation, processing, and distribution scenarios, though GHG emission reductions compared to 

petroleum diesel are reduced to zero if seed yield fall below 1,250 kg / ha-yr. Furthermore, while 

the base case did not consider the potential impacts of direct land-use change, a bounding 

estimate using results from Reinhardt et al. (2008) found that the magnitude and direction of 

benefits would likely not change considerably even if those potential impacts were considered.

As agro-climatic conditions and optimal biodiesel feedstocks vary widely throughout the world, 

no one study can definitively determine the sustainability of biofuels in all scenarios. However, 

this study’s results—and the results of other reviewed studies—suggest that under multiple 

plausible growing conditions and production scenarios, Jatropha-based biodiesel shows promise 

for helping India achieve its GHG-emission reduction and petroleum displacement goals with the 

greatest potential reductions being achievable in the road bus, passenger transportation sector in 

the near term and in the road-freight transportation sector in 2020. However, additional 

economic and market penetration analyses are required to evaluate the potential for direct and 

indirect land-use change and co-product market viability associated with Jatropha cultivation 

expanding to meet required biodiesel production levels. In particular, expected seed and oil 

yields, required cultivation inputs, and existing site conditions, must be closely examined in 

assessing the sustainability of any proposed Jatropha biodiesel production project.
xviii

Table of Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xx

List of Tables .............................................................................................................. xxi

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background..........................................................................................................................2

1.2 Overview of India’s Petroleum Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................2

1.3 Profile of India’s Transportation Sector ..............................................................................2

1.4 System Description ..............................................................................................................3

1.4.1 Life Cycle of Jatropha Biodiesel—General Description ............................................4

1.4.2 Analysis Approach......................................................................................................5

1.4.3 Jatropha Biodiesel Base Case Scenario Description...................................................6

1.4.4 Reference System—Petroleum Diesel Production and Distribution ..........................8

2 Methods .................................................................................................................. 10

2.1 Life Cycle Assessment.......................................................................................................10

2.2 Goal of the Study ...............................................................................................................10

2.3 Scope of the Study .............................................................................................................10

2.4 System Boundaries.............................................................................................................11

2.5 Allocation Procedures........................................................................................................12

2.6 Impact Categories..............................................................................................................13

2.7 Data Requirements.............................................................................................................14

2.8 Model.................................................................................................................................14

2.9 Uncertainty.........................................................................................................................15

2.10 Sensitivity Analysis Approach.........................................................................................16

3 Base Case Assumptions ....................................................................................... 17

4 Base Case Scenario............................................................................................... 21

4.1 Petroleum Diesel Production and Distribution (Reference System)..................................21

4.2 Jatropha Cultivation...........................................................................................................25

4.3 Jatropha Oil Extraction ......................................................................................................29

4.4 Biodiesel Production via Jatropha Oil Transesterification ................................................31

4.5 Vehicle Operation ..............................................................................................................33

4.6 Supporting Processes.........................................................................................................37

5 Normalized Base Case Results............................................................................. 40

5.1 Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................................40

5.2 Net Energy Value...............................................................................................................45

5.3 Net Energy Ratio................................................................................................................46

5.4 Net Petroleum Displacement .............................................................................................47

6 Benchmarking........................................................................................................ 50

7 Sensitivity Analyses .............................................................................................. 52

7.1 Scenario Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................52

7.1.1 Sensitivity Scenario A: Marginal Land, Low Irrigation ...........................................52

7.1.2 Sensitivity Scenario B: Marginal Land, High Cultivation Maintenance ..................55

7.1.3 Sensitivity Scenario C: Good Land, High Cultivation Maintenance........................58
xix

7.1.4 Sensitivity Scenario D: Increased Seed Catchment and Biodiesel Distribution 

Distances...................................................................................................................61

7.1.5 Sensitivity Scenario E: Biomass Offset–Heat...........................................................64

7.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analyses ........................................................................................67

7.2.1 Local Sensitivity Coefficient ....................................................................................67

7.2.2 Individual Parameters Alternate Values ...................................................................72

7.3 Interpretation and Comparison of Sensitivity Analyses ....................................................76

7.3.1 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis Results...................................................................76

7.3.2 Rose Plots of Scenario Sensitivity Results ...............................................................76

8 Discussion.............................................................................................................. 81

8.1 Limitations of this Study....................................................................................................81

8.1.1 Generalizability of Results........................................................................................83

8.2 Uncertainty Analysis..........................................................................................................83

8.3 Projections of Absolute Petroleum Displaced and Net GHG Emission Reductions by 

Utilization of Jatropha Biodiesel in the Indian Road and Rail Sectors..............................84

8.3.1 Calculation Method...................................................................................................84

8.3.2 Petroleum Displacement ...........................................................................................85

8.3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions.....................................................................86

8.3.4 Transport Sector Comparison for Current Conditions and 2020..............................87

9 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 89

10 Research Recommendations................................................................................ 90

References................................................................................................................... 91

Appendix: SimaPro Model and Base Case Model Parameter Values ..................... 97
xx

List of Figures

Figure 1. Jatropha cultivation zones ................................................................................................2

Figure 2. Jatropha curcas trees.........................................................................................................4

Figure 3. Jatropha fruit.....................................................................................................................4

Figure 4. Jatropha seeds...................................................................................................................4

Figure 5. Chhattisgarh state, India, with the location of the city of Raipur indicated. ....................6

Figure 6. Schematic for continuous solvent oil extraction ..............................................................7

Figure 7. Visakhapatnam (Vizag) oil refinery .................................................................................9

Figure 8. Petroleum diesel life cycle process map.........................................................................10

Figure 9. Blended biodiesel life cycle process map.......................................................................11

Figure 10. Modeling schematic for petroleum diesel production and distribution processes .......22

Figure 11. Modeling schematic for Jatropha cultivation processes...............................................25

Figure 12. Modeling schematic for Jatropha oil extraction processes...........................................29

Figure 13. Modeling schematic for biodiesel production via Jatropha oil transesterification 

processes......................................................................................................................31

Figure 14. Modeling schematic for transport vehicle operation....................................................34

Figure 15. Modeling schematic for Indian electricity....................................................................37

Figure 16. Result of sensitivity analysis on B100 net life cycle GHG emission intensity,

as multiple of base case value......................................................................................77

Figure 17. Result of sensitivity analysis on B100 net energy value, as multiple of base case

value.............................................................................................................................78

Figure 18. Result of sensitivity analysis on B100 net life cycle petroleum displacement

intensity, as multiple of base case value ......................................................................79

Figure 19. Result of sensitivity analysis on B100 net life cycle petroleum consumption

intensity, as multiple of base case value ......................................................................80
xxi

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Comparison of net life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity (kg 

CO2e/1,000 GTK) for the base cases for each of four transport modes evaluated in 

this study, and the percent change from the petroleum diesel baseline........................x

Table ES-2. Comparison of net energy value (MJ/1,000 GTK) for the base case for each of four 

transport modes evaluated in this study, and the percent change from the petroleum 

diesel baseline...............................................................................................................x

Table ES-3. Comparison of net petroleum consumption intensity (kg crude oil/ 1,000 GTK) and 

net petroleum displacement intensity (kg crude oil/ 1,000 GTK) for the base case for 

each of four transport modes evaluated in this study, and the percent change from the 

petroleum diesel baseline ........................................................................................... xi

Table ES-4. Projected net life cycle GHG-emission reductions for complete substitution of 

petroleum diesel with B20 produced under base case conditions in the four transport 

modes analyzed in this study..................................................................................... xii

Table ES-5. Projected petroleum displacement for complete substitution of B20 produced under 

base case conditions for conventional diesel in the four transport modes analyzed in 

this study................................................................................................................... xiii

Table 1. Global warming potentials (relative to CO2) of a subset of the greenhouse gases 

evaluated in this study.....................................................................................................13

Table 2. SimaPro module descriptions for petroleum diesel production and distribution.............23

Table 3. Base case data inputs for petroleum diesel production and distribution..........................24

Table 4. SimaPro module descriptions for Jatropha cultivation....................................................26

Table 5. Base case data inputs for Jatropha cultivation.................................................................27

Table 6. SimaPro module descriptions for Jatropha oil extraction................................................30

Table 7. Base case data inputs for Jatropha oil extraction.............................................................30

Table 8. SimaPro module descriptions for biodiesel production via Jatropha oil

transesterification............................................................................................................32

Table 9. Base case data inputs for biodiesel transesterification via Jatropha oil

transesterification............................................................................................................33

Table 10. SimaPro module descriptions for vehicle operation......................................................34

Table 11. Base case data inputs for transport vehicle operation....................................................35

Table 12. SimaPro module descriptions for Indian electricity ......................................................38

Table 13. Base case data inputs for Indian electricity ...................................................................39

Table 14. SimaPro module descriptions for transportation of goods.............................................39

Table 15. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e per 1,000 GTK)

for the base cases for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study .................41

Table 16. Well-to-pump GHG emissions (g CO2e/MJ fuel) for Jatropha biodiesel and 

conventional diesel plus carbon content of fuel ............................................................41

Table 17. Life cycle GHG process contributions by fuel blend ....................................................42

Table 18. Contributions to net life cycle GHG emissions for biodiesel production from

Jatropha (excludes vehicle operation)...........................................................................43

Table 19. Process contributions to life cycle GHG emissions for the production and

distribution of diesel fuel (vehicle operation excluded)................................................44

Table 20. Contribution by GHG to well-to-pump to net life cycle global warming potential ......44
xxii

Table 21: Comparison of NEV (MJ/1,000 GTK) for the base case for each of the four

transport modes evaluated in this study ........................................................................45

Table 22. Well-to-pump NEV (MJ net energy value) for the base case scenario .........................46

Table 23. Net energy ratio evaluated at the point of refueling a vehicle (excluding vehicle 

operation).......................................................................................................................47

Table 24. Comparison of net life cycle petroleum consumption and displacement intensities

(kg crude oil/1,000 GTK) for the base case for each of four transport modes

evaluated in this study ...................................................................................................48

Table 25. Well-to-pump net petroleum consumption and displacement (g crude oil/MJ fuel 

delivered) for the base case scenario.............................................................................49

Table 26. Benchmarking the net life cycle GHG-emission results of the present study against 

results from other published studies..............................................................................50

Table 27. Sensitivity scenario A—marginal land, low irrigation-input parameters......................52

Table 28. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/1,000 GTK) for 

sensitivity scenario A for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study...........53

Table 29. Comparison of NEV (MJ/1,000 GTK) for sensitivity scenario A for each of four 

transport modes evaluated in this study ........................................................................53

Table 30. Comparison of net petroleum consumption and displacement intensity for

sensitivity scenario A for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study...........54

Table 31. Sensitivity scenario B: marginal land, high cultivation maintenance–parameter

inputs.............................................................................................................................55

Table 32. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/ 1,000 GTK) for 

sensitivity scenario B for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study...........56

Table 33. Comparison of NEV intensity (MJ/1,000 GTK) for sensitivity scenario B for each

of four transport modes evaluated in this study ............................................................56

Table 34. Comparison of net petroleum consumption and displacement intensity for

sensitivity scenario B for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study...........57

Table 35. Sensitivity scenario C: good land, high cultivation maintenance-parameter inputs......58

Table 36. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/ 1,000 GTK) for 

sensitivity scenario C for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study...........59

Table 37. Comparison of net NEV (MJ/1,000 GTK) for sensitivity scenario C for each of four 

transport modes evaluated in this study ........................................................................59

Table 38. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity for sensitivity scenario C

for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study ..............................................60

Table 39. Sensitivity scenario D—centralized biodiesel production—input parameters..............61

Table 40. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/ 1,000 GTK)

for sensitivity scenario D for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study .....62

Table 41. Comparison of NEV (MJ/1,000 GTK) for sensitivity scenario D for each of four 

transport modes evaluated in this study ........................................................................62

Table 42. Comparison of net petroleum consumption and displacement intensity for

sensitivity scenario D for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study...........63

Table 43. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/ 1,000 GTK)

for the biomass offset heat sensitivity scenario for each of four transport modes 

evaluated in this study ...................................................................................................64

Table 44. Comparison of NEV (MJ/1,000 GTK) for the biomass offset heat sensitivity scenario 

for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study ..............................................65
xxiii

Table 45. Comparison of net petroleum consumption and displacement intensity for the

biomass offset heat sensitivity scenario for each of four transport modes evaluated

in this study ...................................................................................................................66

Table 46. Local sensitivity coefficient of selected input parameters for net life cycle GHG 

emissions.......................................................................................................................68

Table 47. Local sensitivity coefficient of selected input parameters for net energy value

(NEV)............................................................................................................................70

Table 48. Local sensitivity coefficient of selected input parameters for net petroleum 

consumption intensity....................................................................................................71

Table 49. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/ 1,000 GTK)

for the N2O volatilization rate sensitivity scenario for each of four transport modes 

evaluated in this study ...................................................................................................72

Table 50. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/ 1,000 GTK)

for the biodiesel efficiency loss sensitivity scenario for each of four transport modes 

evaluated in this study ...................................................................................................73

Table 51. Comparison of NEV (MJ/1,000 GTK) for the biodiesel efficiency loss sensitivity 

scenario for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study ................................74

Table 52. Comparison of net petroleum consumption and displacement intensity for the

biodiesel efficiency loss sensitivity scenario for each of four transport modes

evaluated in this study ...................................................................................................75

Table 53. Projected petroleum displacement for complete substitution of B20 produced under 

base case conditions for conventional diesel in the four transport modes analyzed in 

this study........................................................................................................................86

Table 54. Projected net life cycle GHG emission reductions for complete substitution of B20 

produced under base case conditions for conventional diesel in the four transport 

modes analyzed in this study.........................................................................................86

Table 55. Estimated amounts of biodiesel required to completely substitute B20 for

all-petroleum diesel for the four transport modes analyzed in this study .....................88

Table A-1. Base case input parameters that have assigned values................................................97

Table A-2. Calculated input parameters that have values determined by formulas based

on other parameters..................................................................................................107

Table A-3. India Electricity Generation Custom Module............................................................109

Table A-4. Indian Electricity Delivered Custom Module............................................................110

Table A-5. Jatropha Seedling for Planting Custom Module........................................................110

Table A-6. Jatropha Plantation, Planted, India Custom Module .................................................111

Table A-7. Jatropha Seeds Harvested from Plantation Custom Module .....................................112

Table A-8. Jatropha Oil, at Extraction Facility, India Custom Module.......................................114

Table A-9. Biodiesel Production, Base-catalyzed Transesterification, India, at PlantCustom 

Module......................................................................................................................115

Table A-10. Biodiesel Blending, India, at Processing Custom Module ......................................116

Table A-11. Crude Oil at Indian Mix Custom Module................................................................117

Table A-12. Crude Oil Delivered to Refinery via Ocean Tanker, India Custom Module...........117

Table A-13. Indian Rail Transport Custom Module....................................................................118

Table A-14. India Road Transport Custom Module ....................................................................118
1

Introduction

At the behest of the Department of Energy’s Office of Biomass Programs and in cooperation 

with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

performed a life cycle assessment (LCA) of the use of biodiesel made from the seeds of the 

Jatropha plant grown in India and used in India’s existing transport system. In 2003, the Planning 

Commission (2003) released a strategy document for increasing bio-fuel production in the 

country. One goal outlined in the strategy document is to use biodiesel to offset up to 20% of 

diesel consumption by 2012, with Jatropha curcas L. (Jatropha) identified as a favorable 

potential feedstock. With a projected diesel demand of almost 67 million metric tonnes by 2012, 

India would need to produce over 13 million metric tonnes of Jatropha biodiesel to offset 20% of 

diesel consumption, requiring over 11 million hectares of cultivated land (Planning Commission 

2003). Given the scale of such a proposal and with the knowledge that biofuels have 

considerably different—and, in the case of India, more domestically focused—environmental 

impacts than petroleum, it is critically important to evaluate the life cycle performance of 

substituting Jatropha biodiesel for conventional diesel to determine if the desired environmental 

benefits are likely to be achieved. Other research has examined selected life cycle performance 

of substituting Jatropha biodiesel for conventional petroleum diesel. However, these studies 

either focus on conditions in non-Indian countries (Prueksakorn and Gheewala 2008 and Ndong 

et al. 2009) or focus on passenger car transport that is only a minor component of diesel fuel 

consumption in the Indian transportation sector (Reinhardt et al. 2007). 

This study models Indian-specific Jatropha cultivation and processing conditions and evaluates 

potential impacts on sustainability and energy security across multiple transport modes that 

consume the majority of transport-related diesel fuel in India. The analyzed transport modes 

include road-freight transport via goods carrying trucks, road-passenger transport via buses, 

freight transport via rail, and passenger transport via rail. These transport modes were selected 

because they represent the majority of transport-sector diesel fuel consumption in India and can 

be readily compared using the common metric of gross tonne kilometers of transport (GTK)3 to 

determine which mode provides greater environmental and energy security benefits. The study 

seeks (1) to determine the relative reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and petroleum 

consumption for multiple biodiesel blends compared to petroleum diesel, (2) to project potential 

absolute reductions in each of the four analyzed transport modes for both the near term (year 

2006) and future (year 2020), and (3) to evaluate multiple cultivation and processing scenarios in 

order to identify the parameters that are most critical to achieving sustainability and energy 

security goals.

 3 Gross tonne kilometers are calculated as the weight of the vehicle, passengers, and freight multiplied by the 

distance traveled. It can be used to compare transport modes that carry different cargo (freight or passengers) on a 

common basis.
2

1.1 Background

Oil provides over 95% of the energy required for 

India’s transportation sector, while domestic supplies 

provide only 22% of future projected demand 

(Planning Commission 2003). In 2003, the Planning 

Commission of the Government of India (Planning 

Commission) established the Committee on 

Development of Bio-Fuel to explore how India can 

use domestically produced ethanol and biodiesel 

blended with motor spirit (gasoline) and diesel, 

respectively, to reduce vehicle emissions, which 

adversely affect human health and the environment, 

and to decrease the country’s reliance on petroleumbased fuels. Jatropha was selected as the most 

suitable for the production of biodiesel in India for its 

ability to thrive in a variety of agro-climatic 

conditions, low gestation period and high seed yield 

relative to other plants with oil-bearing seeds. In 

2009, the Indian government released a National 

Policy on Biofuels calling for all transport fuels in 

India to contain at least 20% biofuels (Ministry of 

New & Renewable Energy 2009). It has been determined that biodiesel can be used in diesel 

engines at a blend of up to 20% (B20) without substantial engine modifications and generally 

results in reductions of hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide 

emissions (Planning Commission 2003). Figure 1 shows the preferred regions in India for 

Jatropha growth. Areas of the map highlighted in green are most likely to be targeted for 

Jatropha cultivation.

1.2 Overview of India’s Petroleum Consumption and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions

According to the Pew Center for Global Climate Change (2008), India emitted approximately 

1,800 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e) in 2006 with an estimated 

6% of emissions (110 million mtCO2e) coming from the transportation sector. For comparison, 

the transportation sector in the United States in 2006 accounted for approximately 28% of 

national GHG emissions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009). The majority of India’s 

transportation sector GHG emissions are from the combustion of refined petroleum products 

including diesel. As a whole, India consumed approximately 145 million metric tonnes of crude 

oil in 2006 with 110 million metric tonnes imported and 35 million metric tonnes produced 

domestically (International Energy Agency 2009). The transportation sector consumes 

approximately 36 million metric tonnes per year of refined petroleum products including diesel, 

gasoline, and kerosene (International Energy Agency 2009). 

1.3 Profile of India’s Transportation Sector

According to India’s Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport, and Highways (MSRTH), India’s 

transportation sector accounts for 6.4% of India’s gross domestic product (GDP) with road 

transport accounting for 4.5% and rail transport contributing 1.2%. Water and air transport each 

contribute only about 0.2% to overall GDP (MSRTH 2009). The road sector’s contribution to 

Figure 1. Jatropha cultivation zones

Green areas indicate high Jatropha cultivation 

potential in India. Red areas are fertile 

agricultural lands unlikely to be used for 

Jatropha cultivation and pink areas are deserts 

with poor growing conditions. Source: 

http://www.svlele.com
3

national GDP is growing at a rate of 9.4% per year, outpacing overall GDP growth of 6.9% per 

year. The rail sector’s contribution to GDP is growing at 6.8% per year, a similar rate to overall 

GDP growth (MSRTH 2009).

In 2006, more than 89 million motor vehicles were registered in India, and the overall compound 

annual growth rate for registered vehicles exceeded 10% (MSRTH 2009). Approximately 72% 

of registered vehicles in India are two-wheel vehicles and 13% are four-wheel passenger cars. 

Only 5% of registered vehicles are freight-carrying vehicles, and approximately 1% is buses 

(MSRTH 2009). While two-wheel vehicles and passenger cars comprise the majority of 

registrations, they primarily operate on gasoline (Singh et al. 2008) and are therefore not 

potential targets for biodiesel use. Singh et al. (2008) indicate that essentially all light-duty, 

medium-duty, and heavy-duty commercial vehicles in India operate on diesel fuel and that diesel 

fuel consumption has maintained a steady share of transportation sector fuel consumption at 

83%, as increasing demands for freight and passenger transport have offset reductions in relative 

percentages of vehicle registrations. This study focuses on goods carrying commercial vehicles 

and passenger buses to represent the segments of the Indian road transportation sector that are 

primarily responsible for diesel fuel consumption.

In 2006, road-passenger transport exceeded 4,200 billion passenger kilometers (pkm). Although 

two-wheelers and cars account for over 85% of vehicle registrations in India, bus transport—

with over 990,000 registered buses (MSRTH 2009)—accounts for approximately 56% of all road 

sector pkm (Sreenivas and Sant 2008). Indian buses can average up to 40 pkm/vehicle kilometer 

(vkm) (Singh 2005), and they are used heavily in urban areas. Road-freight transport in 2006

reached nearly 660 billion GTK from the operation of 4.4 million registered goods-hauling 

vehicles (MSRTH 2009).

The rail sector in India, operated by Indian Railways (IR), is vital to the domestic transport of 

both passengers and freight. Approximately two billion liters of diesel fuel are consumed 

annually in the operation of almost 4,000 freight and passenger locomotives at a cost of almost 

US$1.3 billion/yr (Kathpal 2008). In 2006, the rail sector accounted for approximately 40% of 

all freight transport in India with over 440 billion GTK transported and provided over 610 billion 

pkm of passenger transport. Indian Railways’ locomotives operate using either electricity or 

diesel to provide the primary motive force with electricity primarily being used for urban and 

suburban passenger transport (Indian Railways 2008). This study focuses on the potential for use 

of biodiesel in diesel locomotives used for both freight and passenger transport and uses GTK as 

the common functional unit. Indian Railways’ diesel locomotives were estimated to provide over 

230 billion GTK of passenger transport and almost 320 billion GTK of freight transport in 2006 

(Ministry of Railways 2008).

1.4 System Description

The following system descriptions are largely reprinted from Whitaker and Heath (2009) for the 

convenience of the reader. Minor updates have been made to reflect the expansion of scope from 

the rail sector to include road transport vehicles.
4

1.4.1 Life Cycle of Jatropha Biodiesel—

General Description

Biodiesel production begins with the cultivation of 

Jatropha (Figure 2), a small tree or large shrub that 

grows to an average height of 3-5 meters (with heights 

exceeding 7 meters in optimal conditions) and bears 

fruits containing seeds rich in non-edible oil suitable for 

conversion to biodiesel. Jatropha can grow in a variety 

of environmental conditions, including poor soils and 

high or low rainfall, but generally prefers the heat of the 

tropics and subtropics. Jatropha can grow without 

irrigation in rainfall conditions ranging from 300 to 

3,000 mm/yr (Achten et al. 2008) and grows in the wild 

throughout India, with a life expectancy of 50 years. 

For commercial production, Jatropha is grown in 

plantations with tree densities ranging from 1,100 to 

2,500 trees/hectare (Achten et al. 2008 and Lele 

2008a). Jatropha is often established through the 

planting of seedlings grown at nurseries in plastic bags 

(Achten et al. 2008). Irrigation and fertilization 

requirements are highly dependent on location-specific 

conditions. Even under adequate rainfall, irrigation 

may be required for the first three years to facilitate 

plantation establishment (Reinhardt et al. 2008). If 

fertilization is required, nitrogen and phosphorus tend 

to be the nutrients of greatest need (Achten et al. 2008). 

In India, Jatropha fruit (Figure 3) can be harvested at 

least once per year, often using human labor (Lele 

2008a).

Once harvested, the Jatropha fruit is de-husked to isolate the oilbearing seeds (Figure 4) through use of either a mechanical 

decorticator or manual labor. The husks can be collected as a coproduct and used to generate energy (heat or electricity) by 

combustion. Chemicals in the seed render the oil toxic to humans 

and animals but appropriate for conversion into biodiesel. The 

yield of Jatropha trees is highly uncertain. According to Achten et 

al. (2008), reliable data on the anticipated dry Jatropha seed yield 

per hectare per year for a given set of environmental conditions 

and inputs do not exist. However, Achten and colleagues suggest 

4-5 metric tons (tonnes) of dry seed per hectare per year as a 

reasonable yield estimate for a well-managed plantation with 

favorable environmental conditions.

Figure 2. Jatropha curcas trees

Source: http://www.jatrophaworld.org

Figure 3. Jatropha fruit

Source: Lele 2008a

Figure 4. Jatropha seeds

Source: Lele 

2008a
5

Jatropha seed oil content can range from an average of 25-40% oil by mass (Sarin 2008a), which 

can be extracted using either mechanical systems such as a screw press or chemical-based 

processes such as solvent extraction (Adriaans 2006). Solvent extraction is more efficient (90-

99% oil extraction) but also more expensive and is only economical for commercial-scale 

processing. Hexane is the primary solvent used for commercial extraction at this time (Adriaans 

2006). Seed cake remaining after oil extraction is rich with nutrients and can be returned to the 

field as fertilizer with an average nitrogen : phosphorous : potassium (NPK) ratio of 40:20:10 

(Prueksakorn and Gheewala 2008). 

To produce a usable biofuel, Jatropha oil is transesterified to biodiesel and glycerine using 

methanol as the alcohol and either sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or potassium hydroxide (KOH) as 

a base catalyst. Glycerine is a marketable co-product whose value depends on the quantity 

available from alternative suppliers, its purity, and other attributes such as its odor. (Glycerine 

produced as a co-product of biodiesel production is known to have a strong odor, which can 

affect its marketability). The Indian Oil Corporation, Ltd. has suggested that the market is robust 

in India for glycerine obtained from biodiesel production, as a substitute for petroleum-based 

chemicals in the production of some plastics, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics, though that may 

not be the case in other countries or at all times (Sarin 2008c).

Biodiesel can be used in both heavy-duty road vehicles such as buses and trucks and in 

locomotives. Biodiesel is initially being used in India in blends of B5, B10, and B20, and it has 

shown no adverse impacts on engine performance in blends of up to B20 in Indian Railways 

trials (Kathpal 2008). A literature review of biodiesel blends in diesel engines used for road 

transport by Basha et al. (2009) has also shown no adverse impact on engine performance. 

Biodiesel can be blended with diesel either at regional storage or at the point of fueling.

1.4.2 Analysis Approach

Several options were available for developing a comparative analysis of Jatropha biodiesel and 

conventional diesel in India based on scenarios for cultivation, extraction, processing, and use in 

transport vehicles. One option was to form a base case scenario from parameters that were 

independently averaged based on point estimates and ranges reported in the literature. A 

motivation for using this approach is to attempt to make the scenario under consideration as

generalizable as possible. However, because many of the parameters are causally related, a 

scenario comprised of averages formed independently could be implausible. Therefore, the 

authors chose an alternative approach. A narrative that coherently links all key parameters into a 

base case scenario was developed. The robustness of this base case scenario was tested by (1) a 

thorough sensitivity analysis that independently examines reasonable alternative values of each 

parameter, and (2) reasonable and internally coherent alternative scenarios. Because so many key 

parameters, especially for Jatropha cultivation, depend on site conditions, the authors, following 

recommendations from the IOC, selected a particular region of India for consideration, matching 

certain agronomic parameters to the typical conditions of that location.4

 4 Specifying a region within India is different from specifying a particular site. Knowledge of site-specific 

conditions would allow for determination of the impacts of changing an existing land use to one of Jatropha 

cultivation, which remains unknown with the current approach.

The following 

subsections describe the most important aspects of the base case scenario for both Jatropha 

biodiesel and conventional diesel production and use in Indian transport vehicles.
6

1.4.3 Jatropha Biodiesel Base Case Scenario Description

Jatropha Cultivation

As Jatropha can be grown throughout India (Figure 

1), and numerous production pathways are possible, 

a base case narrative was developed to guide the 

analysis. The base case narrative is based on 

guidance from the IOC regarding likely future 

development scenarios (Sarin 2008a,b,c,d,e). 

This analysis assumes that the Jatropha trees are 

grown on a 50,000-hectare plantation for 20 years in 

the Raipur area of the Chhattisgarh state of India 

where the average annual rainfall is 1,385 mm/yr. 

The state of Chhattisgarh, identified in red in Figure 

5, falls within the prime Jatropha cultivation zones of 

India displayed in Figure 1. Seeds are manually 

harvested at the plantation and are transported via 

truck to a hypothetical oil extraction facility in 

Raipur. Raipur is the capital of Chhattisgarh, is well 

connected to the region via road and rail, and is one 

of India’s fastest growing industrial cities.

Summary of Jatropha Cultivation and 

Processing Plant Assumptions

The base case Jatropha cultivation and biodiesel processing characteristics are taken from the 

Planning Commission’s (2003) assumptions used in its bio-fuels assessment report. These 

assumptions were used to calculate the base case results for both current conditions and for 

projected impacts in 2020. Sensitivity analyses in Section 7 of this report were used to evaluate 

changes to these assumptions including to critical parameters such as seed yield per hectare that 

are influenced by tree density and assumed yield per tree. The following is a list of some of the 

most important base case assumptions.

• Jatropha is cultivated via nursery.

• Jatropha is planted at a density of 2,500 trees/hectare.

• Quality of soils and agro-climatic conditions (e.g., temperature, rainfall) at the plantation 

site are average for the region.

• Jatropha plants reach maturity within three years of planting at which time full seed yield 

is expected.

• 1,500 grams of seed are harvested per tree per year at full yield, or 3.75 metric tons 

(tonnes) of seed/hectare–yr.

• Seed oil content is 35% by weight.

• Solvent extraction efficiency is 91%.

• Jatropha oil recovery efficiency is 32% (i.e., 35% oil content multiplied by 91% recovery 

efficiency).

• According to the above conditions, 3.125 kg seed is required to produce 1 kg Jatropha oil.

Figure 5. Chhattisgarh state, India, 

with the location of the city of Raipur 

indicated.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Chhattisgarh

Raipur
7

• Assumed oil recovery efficiency yields 1.2 tonnes of Jatropha oil per hectare–yr.

• Anticipated Jatropha oil recovery for the full plantation is 60,000 tonnes/yr.

Jatropha Oil Extraction

This analysis assumes that the oil extraction facility has a capacity of 200 tonnes oil/day, giving 

it the ability to process up to 625 tonnes of seeds/day in a continuous solvent extraction process 

with 91% extraction efficiency. According to Adriaans (2006), continuous solvent extraction of 

Jatropha oil requires processing of at least 200 tonnes of seeds/day to be economical. Solvent 

extraction plants can process up to 4,000 tonnes/day (Adriaans 2006), which means the base 

assumption of a 625-tonnes/day capacity is well within the current technology range. The solvent 

used in the process is hexane as it is currently the only solvent used commercially on a large 

scale (Adriaans 2006). Given the size of the facility, the extraction is assumed to be continuous 

(Figure 6) as opposed to “batch.” Not all of the individual processes shown in Figure 6 are 

specifically modeled in this analysis, though their impacts and results are included in summary 

fashion.

Figure 6. Schematic for continuous solvent oil extraction

Source: Adriaans (2006)

Biodiesel Production via Jatropha Oil Transesterification

The Jatropha oil extraction facility is co-located with the biodiesel transesterification plant for 

logistical reasons. This study assumes both are located in Raipur. The transesterification unit 

capacity is assumed to be 100,000 tonnes of biodiesel/yr with 95% efficiency for conversion of 

Jatropha oil to biodiesel. Operated continuously, the 200-tonne/day, oil-extraction unit would 

generate 73,000 tonnes of Jatropha oil per year. The excess plant capacity could be used by other 
8

extraction units in the area to process Jatropha oil generated. The transesterification process is 

assumed to be base-catalyzed using potassium hydroxide with methanol as the alcohol.

Vehicle Operation

As per discussions with the IOC (Sarin 2008b) and statements by IR (Kathpal 2008), the base 

case compares blends of B5, B10, and B20 to conventional diesel. Results for B100 are also 

presented to facilitate projections for other possible biodiesel blends. The base case assumes that 

the vehicles are fueled in Bhilai, 20 kilometers from Raipur, and that the biodiesel blending with 

petroleum diesel occurs at the IOC’s Bhilai petroleum depots. The base case analyzes the fuel 

requirements for 2 billion gross tonne-kilometers (GTK) of vehicle travel over 20 years. An IR 

study found a negligible effect on volumetric fuel consumption for locomotives operated on B5, 

B10, or B20 (Kathpal 2008). Basha et al. (2009) found similar results for the road sector. The 

base case assumes no fuel consumption differential from the use of biodiesel blends compared to 

diesel, while the sensitivity analysis tests for the impacts of reductions in biodiesel fuel 

consumption efficiency with increases in biodiesel percentages. Assumed fuel consumption 

efficiencies for each vehicle transport mode are listed in Table 11. This study assumes that the 

combustion of biodiesel results in no net carbon dioxide emissions; carbon sequestered from the 

atmosphere during the growth of the Jatropha biomass offsets the carbon dioxide emissions from 

combustion of the same biomass. This concept is described further in Section 3.

1.4.4 Reference System—Petroleum Diesel Production and Distribution

As biodiesel is used primarily in blended applications with conventional, petroleum-based diesel 

(diesel), the diesel life cycle serves a dual purpose in this analysis. First, the 100% diesel 

scenario serves as a benchmark against which the biodiesel blends (B5, B10, B20, and B100) are 

compared. Second, the entire diesel life cycle is contained within the blended biodiesel life cycle 

as even in the highest blending scenario (B20), 80% of the fuel comes via the diesel pathway. 

Crude oil used in India is of both domestic and foreign origin. For the base case, foreign oil is 

assumed to be extracted from Saudi Arabia (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2007a) and 

transported to the Visakhapatnam Oil Refinery (VIZAG) on the east coast of India near the Bay 

of Bengal (Figure 7). Domestic oil is assumed to be extracted from the Bombay High oil field off 

the west coast of India near Mumbai and transported via oil tanker to VIZAG. Refined diesel is 

transported from VIZAG to the oil depots in Bhilai near Raipur via rail for fueling transport 

vehicles at the Bhilai depots. A complete set of detailed data regarding the operations of the 

VIZAG refinery was not made available in time for completion for this study. However, a preestablished diesel fuel-refining module based on Western European average refining impacts 

from the ecoinvent 2.0 database (Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories 2008) was used as a 

substitute with customized factors for electricity and thermal energy consumption based on 

VIZAG operating conditions (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited 2008). If the Western 

European refinery operates more efficiently than the Indian refinery, results may be biased in 

favor of the diesel system. If, however, tighter environmental regulations result in the Western 

European refinery using more energy for fuel processing, results may be biased in favor of the 

biodiesel system.
9

Figure 7. Visakhapatnam (Vizag) oil refinery

The Vizag oil refinery is located near the Bay of Bengal in eastern India.

Source: http://www.mapsofindia.com/

VIZAG
10

2 Methods

2.1 Life Cycle Assessment

For a detailed description of life cycle assessment methodology and an explanation of how it is 

used in this study, see Whitaker and Heath (2009).

2.2 Goal of the Study

The purpose of this study is to compare the environmental impacts of using Jatropha biodiesel

for road and rail transport in India with a baseline of conventional petroleum diesel use. The 

methodology used in this study is consistent with that described by the ISO 14044:2006

standards for LCA, and particularly those standards that cover inventory analysis (International 

Organization for Standardization 2006). The study is intended to lend guidance regarding the 

potential impacts of a significant increase in biodiesel production from Jatropha plants to offset a 

portion of the diesel fuel being used in the Indian transport system. LCA is used to evaluate the 

relative impacts throughout the life cycle phases, including resource extraction, crop cultivation, 

processing, and use in order to develop as complete a picture as possible of the likely impacts. 

The study also seeks to identify which key parameters and uncertainties are most likely to 

influence the conclusions of the study. The intended audience includes policy makers, industry 

executives, academic researchers, and any interested members of the public.

2.3 Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is the evaluation of the production of conventional petroleum diesel and 

the production of biodiesel from Jatropha for use in the road and rail transportation sectors of 

India. The analyzed vehicles include heavy-duty long distance cargo trucks representing “roadfreight,” passenger buses representing “road-passenger,” IR cargo trains representing “railfreight,” and IR passenger trains representing “rail-passenger.” The functional unit for the study 

is 1,000 GTK of transport. GTK includes both the weight of the train and the weight of any 

passengers or cargo on board. The functional unit assumes that the primary goal of the Indian 

transportation systems is to move passengers or cargo and that diesel and biodiesel should be 

evaluated in terms of their ability to provide that function. An overview of the processes included 

in the system evaluations are detailed in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The diesel and biodiesel 

production pathways are evaluated beginning with resource extraction, through transportation 

and processing, to use in transport vehicles. 

Figure 8. Petroleum diesel life cycle process map
11

The diesel life cycle is required for analyzing the combustion of both conventional petroleum 

diesel and blended biodiesel in transport vehicles. 

Figure 9. Blended biodiesel life cycle process map

The entire petroleum diesel production and distribution life cycle outlined in Figure 8 is 

contained in the blended biodiesel life cycle. Supporting processes include Indian transportation 

systems and electricity generation, transmission and distribution. 

2.4 System Boundaries

This study analyzes both petroleum-diesel and biodiesel production and use pathways in India. It 

identifies resource consumption, energy use, and emissions for the following life cycle stages 

and sub-processes:

1. Petroleum diesel production and distribution (Reference System)

A. Foreign and domestic crude oil extraction

B. Crude oil transport 

C. Crude oil refining into diesel fuel

D. Diesel fuel distribution for direct use and for blending with biodiesel

2. Jatropha cultivation

A. Seedling production and planting 

B. Plantation operation and management, including harvesting of tree trimmings for 

use in combustion for process heat or electricity generation

C. Seed harvesting and transport to extraction facility

3. Jatropha oil extraction

A. Separation of seeds from husks with husks later used in combustion for process 

heat or electricity generation

B. Solvent-based extraction of oil

C. De-oiled seed cake use as fertilizer substitute

4. Biodiesel production via Jatropha oil transesterification

A. Base-catalyzed transesterification to biodiesel
12

B. Transport of biodiesel for blending with petroleum diesel

C. Co-production of glycerol, which is later refined to glycerine

5. Vehicle operation

A. Vehicle operation on conventional petroleum diesel

B. Vehicle operation on blended biodiesel

6. Supporting processes 

A. Indian transportation vehicles and infrastructure

B. Indian electricity and transmission and distribution infrastructure

C. Local generation of steam for use in Jatropha oil extraction and biodiesel 

transesterification processes

While the amortized impacts of manufacturing, assembling, and constructing infrastructure 

related to most processes are included in the analysis, railroad and road construction and related 

equipment infrastructure are omitted because the existing rail and road systems are assumed to 

be used. Operation of the vehicles (road and rail, freight and passenger) is included as the use 

phase of the study for both the petroleum-diesel and biodiesel pathways. 

The geographic boundary for the study is India, except in as much as resources are extracted and 

transported to India from other countries. 

The system vintage boundary for the study is set for present day technologies and systems. No 

efforts are made to project future technology advances. The most recent, quality data are used 

whenever possible.

Impacts are evaluated over a 20-year timeframe, assuming 2 billion gross tonne-kilometers 

(GTK) of vehicle travel during that period. The selection of timescale should not significantly 

affect results as the time scale is consistent between the diesel and biodiesel systems and the 

results are normalized by 1,000 GTK. The 20-year period is consistent with analyses conducted 

in other studies (Reinhardt et al. 2007, Prueksakorn and Gheewala 2008, Whitaker and Heath

2009).

2.5 Allocation Procedures

Many options are available within LCA for the allocation of impacts (Scientific Applications 

International Corporation 2006). Allocation is necessary when a process produces more than one 

valuable product. For example, the extraction of Jatropha oil from the seeds produces two 

valuable products: Jatropha oil and Jatropha seed cake. The Jatropha oil is processed into 

biodiesel while the seed cake can be used in the fields as fertilizer, thus offsetting some chemical 

fertilizer requirements. It would be incorrect to assign all of the impacts associated with the 

energy and materials required to extract the oil to the Jatropha oil when the seed cake is also a 

valuable product. Allocation procedures typically divide process impacts among co-products 

using mass, energy, or economic value as the metric.

While each of these allocation procedures has its merits, the preferred methodology for LCAs is 

system boundary expansion where all process impacts are included but credits are taken for the 
13

impacts that are avoided by the production and use of the co-product (International Organization 

for Standardization 2006). In the case of oil extraction, the full process impacts are included in 

the analysis but credit is taken for the impacts that are avoided because the chemical fertilizer 

does not have to be produced because the seed cake is used in the fields. Other system boundary 

expansions considered in this study include (1) biomass from pruning Jatropha plants and using 

Jatropha fruit husks to generate electricity that offsets the Indian grid electricity, (2) biomass 

combusted to generate process heat, and (3) glycerol produced during transesterification being 

refined to glycerine for use in offsetting synthetic glycerine production.

2.6 Impact Categories

The study focuses on three primary impact categories: 

1. Greenhouse gas emissions from all GHGs identified and characterized by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are considered cumulatively

and weighted according to their 100-year global warming potential relative (GWP) to 

CO2, in metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e). The GWPs of the GHG 

emissions are calculated according to the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report (2007)

as detailed in Table 1. 

2. Net energy value is evaluated by subtracting the net cumulative energy demand of the 

system from the energy delivered to the transport vehicles in the form of fuel energy 

(Farrell et al. 2006). All types of energy (e.g. fossil, nuclear, and renewable) along with 

credits for the use of biodiesel system co-product offsets are accounted for in the 

cumulative energy demand calculation. Net energy ratio, calculated as the fuel energy 

delivered divided by cumulative energy demand, is also briefly discussed for comparison 

to the Jatropha biodiesel rail-sector results (Whitaker and Heath 2009) and to other 

biodiesel analyses.

3. Net petroleum displacement is tracked in terms of reduced crude oil consumption for the

analyzed biodiesel blend relative to the reference conventional petroleum diesel system. 

Table 1. Global warming potentials (relative to CO2) of a subset

of the greenhouse gases evaluated in this study (Source: IPCC 2007)

Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential

CO2 1

CH4 25

N2O 298

HFC-23 14,800

HFC-32 675

HFC-125 3,500

HFC-134a 1,430

HFC-143a 4,470

HFC-152a 124

HFC-227ea 3,220

HFC-236fa 9,810

HFC-4310mee 1,640

CF4 7,390

C2F6 12,200

C3F8 8,830
14

Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential

C4F10 8,860

C5F12 9,160

C6F14 9,300

SF6 22,800

Efforts were made to gather information on criteria pollutants, toxic air pollutants, and water 

consumption, but not enough India-specific, quality data were available throughout the life cycle 

processes to provide for a consistent and complete analysis of these impacts.

2.7 Data Requirements

Whenever possible, India-specific data from literature or the IOC are used for the base case 

analysis. When Indian data are not available, preference is given to regional studies from South 

or Southeast Asia with data gaps filled by established life cycle inventory (LCI) data from 

Europe and North America. 

2.8 Model

The diesel and biodiesel systems are modeled using SimaPro 7.1 LCA Software from PRé

Consultants (http://www.pre.nl/simapro/). SimaPro allows for the modeling of complex life 

cycles and the running of detailed sensitivity studies to determine the importance of parameter 

uncertainty and variability. Whenever possible, custom SimaPro process modules were 

developed to meet Indian-specific operating conditions. (Tables A3–A14 report the coding of the 

custom modules.) Modules within the SimaPro model are designed to define material, energy, 

and environmental inputs and outputs that are required for a specific process within the life 

cycle. For example, a module may define the electricity, steam, and water required for Jatropha 

oil extraction along with the required seeds that must be delivered from the plantation and the 

impacts of constructing the facility infrastructure.

When Indian data were unavailable or insufficient, gaps were filled using data from the 

ecoinvent v2 LCI database (http://www.ecoinvent.org/) included with the SimaPro software. 

While other LCI databases are available within and outside of SimaPro, to maintain consistency 

throughout the process, ecoinvent process modules were preferentially utilized because of the 

depth and breadth of the data modules and the consistent inclusion of infrastructure impacts. For 

these and other reasons, ecoinvent data are commonly used in LCAs by other researchers, 

improving comparability of our results to those. Infrastructure impact data are lacking for Indianspecific conditions and therefore are taken from the available data sets in ecoinvent. ecoinvent 

data are primarily focused on European conditions but contain many worldwide modules with 

data sets ranging from energy, building materials, and transport to chemicals, agriculture, and 

waste management.
15

2.9 Uncertainty

As with all LCAs, this analysis encountered a great deal of uncertainty. Lloyd and Reis (2007) 

provide an excellent discussion of how uncertainty is characterized, addressed, and analyzed in 

LCA studies, along with the various types of uncertainty likely to be encountered. Uncertainty is 

particularly relevant to the outcomes of this study because the model is deterministic, using point 

estimates for all input parameters to generate single-point output estimates each time the model 

is run. Such a deterministic model that produces point estimates can yield a false perception of 

certainty in results that are generated from uncertain inputs. The authors’ approaches for 

addressing uncertainty are discussed in the introduction to Section 7. 

This study, which borrows the Lloyd and Reis typology, faces three primary types of uncertainty:

1. Parameter uncertainty—uncertainty in the numerical value assigned to a particular 

input parameter

2. Scenario uncertainty—uncertainty related to developing the analysis scenarios for the 

study, including selection of functional units, time horizons, and allocation procedures, 

use of co-products, and technology characterization

3. Model uncertainty—uncertainty in the mathematical relationships that drive the 

calculations in the model, which is designed to represent real world systems. Model 

uncertainty is minimized in this study for impacts such as GHG emissions from fuel 

combustion where the mathematical relationships between fuel consumption and GHG 

emissions are well established. The primary model uncertainty stems from random error 

and statistical variation related to the projected outputs of the Jatropha cultivation 

processes based on defined inputs.

Lloyd and Reis (2007) list seven major sources of uncertainty and variability that are applicable 

to each of the three types of uncertainty faced by this study. Below are highlighted the five major 

sources of uncertainty and variability in this study, with examples representing one or more of 

the three types of uncertainty.

1. Data unavailability: Comprehensive data sets detailing anticipated Jatropha seed and oil 

production given a particular set of environmental conditions and cultivation inputs are 

available mostly for site-specific studies and are not well characterized for general 

modeling of Jatropha cultivation. 

2. Measurement uncertainty: Even when important parameters are identified and 

analyzed, precisely and accurately measuring their values may be difficult. Of particular 

relevance to this study is the accurate measurement of N2O release from nitrogen 

fertilizers as N2O is a potent GHG. Models can predict likely N2O release based on soil, 

climate, and fertilizer characteristics, but precise and accurate in situ measurements, on 

which the models are based, have proven extremely difficult to obtain.

3. Inherent variability: Many of the parameters in this study are strongly influenced by 

temporal and geographical conditions that vary over time, such as rainfall and the mix of 

foreign and domestic crude oil entering India. Moreover, while some of the parameters 

have well-established relationships, such as anticipated CO2 emissions from combusting 

a given amount of diesel fuel, several of the parameters in this study lack direct 

deterministic correlations. For example, seed and oil yields are challenging to predict 
16

with a great degree of certainty even if all environmental and human inputs and 

conditions of the system are known. These are examples of parameters that are inherently 

variable, with many other parameters exhibiting similarly variable numerical estimates. 

4. Systematic errors and subjective judgment: Scenarios are set based on current 

processes worldwide and likely use of co-products. The market for biodiesel and Jatropha 

is immature in India, making it likely the included processes and product and co-product 

uses will change over time. Moreover, no technology advancement is assumed over the 

analysis lifetime, as predictions for the likely evolution of technology are not available.

5. Expert uncertainty and disagreement: There is no expert consensus on the most likely 

scenario for how Jatropha cultivation and transformation into biodiesel will develop in 

India. Multiple scenarios are plausible and vary greatly in terms of geographical location, 

production pathways, and co-product use even before the uncertainty of input parameters 

is included. The lack of expert agreement makes the development of a coherent analytical 

narrative challenging. As multiple competing scenarios could be proposed, the 

applicability of the results outside of the developed scenarios is uncertain.

2.10 Sensitivity Analysis Approach

Reasons to conduct a sensitivity analysis are at least twofold. First, sensitivity analysis can test 

the robustness of conclusions to parameter uncertainty and variability, assessed independently or 

in combinations. Second, sensitivity analysis can determine and rank the influence a given 

parameter has on model outputs. This study attempts to achieve both of these goals in its 

sensitivity analysis. It focuses on using scenario sensitivity analysis to evaluate alternative, 

plausible biodiesel production scenarios and on using parametric sensitivity analysis to assess the 

impact of key parameters on model outcomes.

Sensitivity analysis is distinct from uncertainty analysis. One method of uncertainty analysis 

propagates the uncertainty and variability of parameters through model calculations to estimate 

the uncertainty (error bounds) of model results. This study does not conduct a formal uncertainty 

analysis because the uncertainty and variability of parameter values for many parameters are 

unknown and the web of modeled processes is so complex that propagation is challenging. 

However, the study attempts to analyze both a plausible base case scenario and a series of 

coherent and plausible alternative scenarios that test the impact of changing multiple, related 

parameters on the model’s outcomes. Additionally, the study selects ten individual input 

parameters to test the proportional impact of a consistent change in their input values on the 

outcomes of the model to determine a local sensitivity coefficient.
17

3 Base Case Assumptions

Developing a coherent narrative for a base case analysis is among the most difficult tasks in an 

LCA of Jatropha biodiesel in India. As Achten and colleagues noted in their literature review, a 

quality set of data identifying anticipated Jatropha yields associated with specific environmental 

conditions and detailed irrigation and fertilization schedules does not exist (Achten et al. 2008). 

Experimentally developing such a coherent set of primary data inputs was outside the scope of 

this study. Consequently, the authors had to make many assumptions to define the scenarios and 

to estimate values for all parameters and scenarios. In addition, completing an LCA requires 

decisions about modeling approaches and calculation methods that do not necessarily have 

correct answers. To accurately interpret the results of an LCA, the analysts’ assumptions and 

decisions must be transparent to the reader. Below, eleven major base case assumptions and 

modeling decisions for this study are outlined:

1. Fuel economy does not decrease with increasing biodiesel blends.

2.

According to initial 

Indian Railways (IR) trials of biodiesel in their locomotives, no difference in volumetric 

fuel consumption was observed for operation using B5, B10, or B20 compared to 

operation using conventional diesel (Kathpal 2008). Similarly, in a literature review of 

diesel engine performance on biodiesel blends, Basha et al. (2009) found no adverse 

impact on engine performance. If a fuel economy decrement is in fact experienced, then 

this study’s impacts will have been underestimated. Therefore, the sensitivity analysis 

examines the impact of assuming a fuel economy decrement with the use of biodiesel of 

up to 8% for B100, scaling proportionally with the percent biodiesel blend (Van Gerpen 

2009). 

The biodiesel fuel combusted is assumed to have no CO2 emissions.

3.

At some point in this 

biofuel LCA, the carbon sequestered by the growth of the Jatropha trees must be credited 

as a reduction in GHG emissions from the biodiesel system. This study incorporates that 

credit by assuming an emission factor of zero for all biofuels combustion, including the 

portion of the transport vehicle fuel composed of biodiesel and the Jatropha biomass and 

combustion of prunings and clippings. The alternative assumption would be to account 

for carbon sequestration during the plantation operation phase. Data sets that define the 

rate at which Jatropha plants sequester carbon are not well established. Therefore, the 

authors chose to credit the sequestration at the point and time of use. The assumption of 

no net GHG emissions from combustion of biofuels is based on an assumption of 

complete combustion. Complete combustion means negligible emissions of other carboncontaining compounds such as carbon monoxide and methane along with other GHGs 

such as N2O. Consequently, by first principles, the emission of carbon dioxide from the 

complete combustion of the biomass (in the form of solid or liquid fuel) must equal the 

carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere. This assumption, which is also used by 

Ndong et al. (2009), should not bias results towards diesel or biodiesel, as a modification 

of this assumption would produce results within the error bounds of the study.

Potential land-use changes were not evaluated. Two categories of land use change are 

discussed here: direct and indirect. Direct land use change occurs on the land used to 

cultivate Jatropha. For instance, land is converted from fallow, marginal or active use to a 

Jatropha plantation. Indirect land use change occurs on other land, whether domestic or 

foreign, as a result of the displacement of products produced from the land that has been 
18 

converted to a Jatropha plantation. For instance, if an edible oil seed crop is grown on 

land converted to a Jatropha plantation, then the reduced supply of oil seed could induce 

a different market actor to convert other lands to make up for the lost supply. 

4. The location of the hypothetical Jatropha plantation considered in this study was not 

described in enough detail to ascertain its prior land use and aboveground and 

belowground carbon content. Therefore, determining net change in carbon content of the 

plantation site that is due to direct land-use change was not feasible. A significant 

limitation of this study is that the potential impacts of land-use change are not considered. 

Indirect (market-mediated) land-use change is not likely to be strongly linked to Jatropha 

production under current plans, which envision previously abandoned agricultural or 

otherwise degraded lands as Jatropha production zones (India Planning Commission 

2003; Padma 2008). However, conversion of those lands to Jatropha production could 

result in greater, equal, or lesser soil carbon sequestration depending on the level of 

vegetation of the previous sites (Reinhardt et al. 2008). Consideration of the impact of 

this latter, so-called direct land-use change could alter the results presented in this study, 

though the direction and magnitude of difference from this study’s estimates are 

unknown because such a determination requires site-specific inputs, which this study 

does not provide. 

The carbon emissions from direct land-use change could be zero, small or significant, and 

could be either positive or negative, depending on the prior land use. According to a 

global market study on Jatropha (Global Exchange for Social Investment (GEXSI) 2008), 

60% of identified Indian Jatropha projects cultivate the plants either wholly or partially 

on lands that are not suitable for agricultural production. Former land use for Jatropha 

project sites throughout Asia include 54% no use/wasteland, 42% non-food agricultural 

land, 0.4% primary forest, and 4% secondary forest; no lands used for food production 

are currently being targeted (GEXSI 2008). Locating Jatropha projects primarily on 

wastelands or agricultural lands that are not suitable for food production should minimize 

negative GHG-emission impacts from indirect land-use change by not displacing food 

production and may even provide a net GHG-emission benefit if non-vegetated land or 

land with a low soil carbon content is populated with Jatropha trees. If wastelands are 

used, soil carbon could be reasonably anticipated to increase after conversion to Jatropha 

plantation. Moreover, a bounding estimate based on data from Reinhardt et al. (2008) 

projects that the maximum direct land-use change GHG emissions would equate to 

approximately the following percentages of total 20-year net life cycle GHG emissions 

for the analyzed transport modes: +0.25% for passenger-road transport, +0.33% for 

freight-road transport, +1.0% for passenger-rail transport, and +1.6% for freight-rail 

transport. (See Section 8.1 for further discussion of this bounding estimate.) 

The authors believe that the omission of land-use change impacts from the GHGemission analysis in this study does not significantly bias the results in favor of Jatropha 

biodiesel production based on 1) the previous land use characteristics of current Jatropha 

projects in the region, 2) the stated intention of the Planning Commission (2003) and 

Ministry of New &Renewable Energy (2009) to focus Jatropha production on degraded 

lands, and 3) the bounding estimate generated using data from Reinhardt et al. (2008). 
19

5. A 20-year time horizon is assumed.

6.

A time horizon of greater than one year is required to 

analyze Jatropha biomass systems in order to include upfront activities such as plowing 

and irrigating the land for planting and the time required for Jatropha plants to mature. 

The duration of the life cycle should not bias results as most results are normalized to the 

functional unit (1,000 gross tonne kilometers) for reporting. A 20-year time horizon is 

well within the lifetime of most pieces of infrastructure in the study and is the value used 

in comparable studies (Reinhardt et al. 2007; Prueksakorn and Gheewala 2008). 

However, technological innovations will likely occur over this period, particularly for a 

nascent industry like biodiesel production in India. These potential innovations are not 

accounted for in the study, and if any were to occur, would lead to the results of this 

study being an underestimation of the life cycle impacts.

Jatropha plants receive 100% of their total required annual water, and 20% of the 

required water is supplied by irrigation.

7.

Data on the required irrigation for Jatropha trees 

is limited and not well coordinated with projected seed yield or with specific agroclimatic conditions. However, according to GEXSI (2008), more than 60% of Indian 

Jatropha projects report using some form of irrigation. Therefore, the authors chose to 

include irrigation in the baseline scenario. To calculate the amount of irrigation water 

required each year, data from Kheira and Atta’s (2008) study on the response of Jatropha 

to water deficits is used. These data include the average weekly water consumption of 

Jatropha during the growing season and the average length of the growing season 

including initial development, flowering, and harvest stages. The authors assume that the 

combination of irrigation and rainwater meets 100% of Jatropha’s annual water needs, 

with 20% of the water supplied via irrigation to meet time-specific water requirements. 

The sensitivity analysis tests scenarios for no irrigation and for up to 40% of water 

demand being met with irrigation. This irrigation-requirement calculation methodology is 

one of the major enhancements to the LCA model represented in Whitaker and Heath 

(2009).

Irrigation is assumed to be required for only the first three years of cultivation.

8.

Reinhardt 

and colleagues (2008) suggest that irrigation is only required during the establishment 

period of the plantation, which they report as three years. If irrigation is necessary for 

longer than three years, the impacts estimated in the base case scenario will be 

underestimated. The sensitivity analysis evaluates the impacts of requiring irrigation each 

year for the full life cycle.

Initial tree density is 2,500 trees/hectare in a 2 m × 2 m planting grid.

9.

Tree planting 

densities reported in the literature range from 1,100 to 2,500+ trees per hectare with the 

appropriate planting density largely dependent on local conditions. The Planning 

Commission (2003) uses 2,500 trees/hectare as the density for its calculations, which is 

taken as the base case assumption for this study. This important assumption will tend to 

increase both seed and biomass yields per hectare compared to cases of lower densities 

reported in the literature, benefiting the biodiesel system in comparison to the diesel 

reference system.

No pesticides, insecticides, or herbicides are applied to the crops. Some literature 

suggests that the use of protective chemicals on the trees may not be necessary (Reinhardt 

et al. 2008; Prueksakorn and Gheewala 2008) in part because of the toxic nature of the 

plant. Other studies have cited pests that do affect Jatropha crop yields (Lele 2008a). 
20

Because data sets recommending the appropriate amounts of chemicals to apply over tree 

life cycle are not well developed, this study assumes no protective chemicals are 

necessary. This assumption would lead to underestimated impacts for biodiesel 

production if protective chemicals were in fact necessary, though the degree of 

underestimation is likely not significant.

10. Seed cake is used to offset fertilizer use on the plantation.

11.

Jatropha seed cake has multiple 

potential uses once the oil has been extracted. This study assumes the seed cake is 

returned to the plantation to offset an amount of NPK fertilizer equal to the nutrient 

content of the seed cake. An alternative use of the seed cake—combustion to produce 

useable heat or power—is not considered.

Biomass removed from the plantation is combusted to generate electricity.

12.

Biomass 

removed from the plantation via pruning and clipping is assumed to be combusted to 

generate electricity (Reinhardt et al. 2008). The electricity generated from the plantation 

biomass offsets Indian grid electricity. Because system boundary expansion (as outlined 

in Section 4) is used to account for environmental burdens from co-products, no 

allocation of the environmental burdens of Jatropha tree cultivation were assigned to the 

removed biomass. No CO2 emissions are assumed for the biomass combustion to account 

for the credit that should be given for CO2 sequestration during Jatropha cultivation. 

Efficiency of conversion from biomass combustion to electricity generation is assumed to 

be 25% (U.S. Climate Change Technology Program 2005). An alternative assumption 

tested in the sensitivity analysis is that the energy produced by combusting the biomass 

offsets heat required in a local industrial process.

Adequate markets exist for glycerine.

The subsequent sections report important aspects of the model that define the base case scenario. 

This study does not conduct a market analysis to 

evaluate the potential for the sale of glycerine produced as a co-product of Jatropha 

biodiesel production to offset synthetic glycerine production. The base case and 

sensitivity scenario results assume that such a viable market exists based on statements 

by the Indian Oil Corporation (Sarin 2008c). Eliminating the co-product credit for 

glycerine diminishes the sustainability and energy security benefits analyzed in this study 

but does not change the conclusions regarding the comparison of the impacts of Jatropha 

biodiesel production and use to conventional petroleum diesel production and use. For 

example, removing the credit for offsetting synthetic glycerine production from the base 

case analysis decreases the GHG emission reductions for B100 compared to petroleum 

diesel from 72% to 60%. Thus, the conclusion that the production and use of Jatropha 

biodiesel emits fewer life cycle GHG emissions than the production and use of petroleum 

diesel does not change.
21

4 Base Case Scenario

Aspects of the model that define the base case scenario are separated into six primary categories, 

as listed below. Details on the included data and processes are highlighted in each corresponding 

subsection of the report.

1. Petroleum diesel production and distribution (Reference System)

2. Jatropha cultivation

3. Jatropha oil extraction

4. Biodiesel production via Jatropha oil transesterification

5. Transport vehicle operation

6. Supporting processes.

Each category is defined in SimaPro by several modules, as shown in Figure 10–Figure 15. 

Many of the modules were developed by the authors. These are referred to hereafter as “custom” 

modules. The exact coding of the custom modules is reported in Appendix A. Where Indiaspecific data were not available, ecoinvent 2.0 modules were used. These modules are labeled as 

such in Figure 10–Figure 15. The detailed coding of these modules cannot be reported, as the 

information is proprietary.

4.1 Petroleum Diesel Production and Distribution (Reference System)

Both the conventional petroleum-diesel reference system and the biodiesel pathways include the 

life cycle impacts of diesel fuel production and distribution. Biodiesel pathways include diesel 

impacts associated with diesel fuel consumption in vehicles used for collecting seeds and 

distributing processed biodiesel. Figure 10 displays the modules used to model the petroleum 

diesel production and distribution system in SimaPro that applies both to diesel-fueled rail and 

road transport and to consumption of diesel fuel in transport vehicles during other life cycle 

stages.
22

Figure 10. Modeling schematic for petroleum diesel production and distribution processes

Table 2 describes the purpose of each custom and ecoinvent 2.0 module utilized in modeling the 

petroleum diesel production and distribution processes. 
23

Table 2. SimaPro module descriptions for petroleum diesel production and distribution

Module Name Module Purpose Comments

Onshore Crude 

Oil Extraction–

Middle East

This ecoinvent 2.0 module calculates 

the impacts of onshore oil production in 

the Middle East. As the largest fraction 

of Indian foreign crude oil originates in 

the Middle East, this module is used to 

represent the 70% of Indian crude oil 

that is from foreign sources.

Indian oil may also come from foreign 

offshore or onshore sources, Africa 

(particularly Nigeria), or other foreign 

locations. Oil from these sources is not 

considered in this study.

Offshore Crude 

Oil Extraction–

Great Britain

This ecoinvent 2.0 module calculates 

the impacts of offshore oil production 

near Great Britain. The module is used 

as a proxy for the impacts of domestic 

offshore oil production from the Bombay 

High oil fields in India.

The largest share of domestically produced 

Indian crude oil is produced offshore at the 

Bombay High oil fields. The ecoinvent 

module for offshore crude oil production in 

Great Britain is used as a proxy for Indian 

production.

Ocean Tanker 

Transport

This ecoinvent 2.0 module calculates 

the impacts of the transport of foreign 

and domestic crude oil via ocean tanker 

to the coastal terminal of 

Visakhapatnam in India.

Crude oil is assumed to be delivered to the 

port at Visakhapatnam, India, adjacent to 

the VIZAG refinery. Foreign oil originates in 

Saudi Arabia, domestic oil from Bombay 

High.

Crude Oil at 

Indian Refinery

This custom module aggregates crude 

oil produced domestically and from 

foreign sources at the port at 

Visakhapatnam, India prior to refining.

The custom module in SimaPro 

incorporates the impacts of production of 

crude oil from the various sources and the 

ocean transport to deliver crude oil to the 

VIZAG refinery.

Diesel at 

Refinery/India

This modified ecoinvent 2.0 module 

quantifies the impacts of refining crude 

oil into high-speed diesel5

The parameters modified to India-specific 

conditions in this module include the 

source of crude oil, required electricity, and 

thermal energy consumption.

This module 

represents an average European 

refinery from year 2000 customized to 

VIZAG conditions.

Diesel at 

Regional 

Storage/India

This modified ecoinvent 2.0 module 

quantifies the impacts from distributing 

diesel to regional storage via road, rail, 

and pipeline.

The ecoinvent diesel at regional storage 

module accounts for losses that occur 

during diesel distribution and refueling of 

vehicles. The only modifications to Indiaspecific conditions are the refinery 

supplying the diesel fuel (based on VIZAG) 

and the freight-rail distance for transport to 

assumed market of Bhilai.

Diesel Rail 

Transport

This custom module represents the end 

use of diesel fuel for rail transport.

This use of diesel fuel is modeled in two 

sub-markets, passenger (narrow gauge) 

and freight (heavy gauge), each with its 

own specific fuel economy.

Diesel Road 

Transport

This custom module represents the end 

use of diesel fuel for road transport.

This use of diesel fuel is modeled in two 

sub-markets, passenger (bus) and freight 

(truck), each with its own specific fuel 

economy (see Table 11).

Key data used to develop the custom module for Indian crude oil production and distribution are 

reported in Table 3. Seventy percent of Indian crude oil comes from foreign sources with the 

greatest percentage originating in the Middle East (Bureau of Energy Efficiency, India 2008). 

 5 Indian refinery specifications refer to the production of high-speed diesel for use in motor vehicles. That 

terminology is maintained here for consistency with the reference.
24

IOC indicated an average of 75% of its crude oil supply originates from foreign sources (Sarin 

2008e). Domestically, the largest percentage of Indian oil is extracted from the offshore oil fields 

at Bombay High (Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas 2006). As tracing a specific drop of oil 

through the Indian system is not possible, this study constructs a plausible base case scenario 

based on country averages, where foreign oil is extracted from Saudi Arabia (U.S. Energy 

Information Administration 2007a) and domestic oil is extracted from Bombay High, with both 

locations shipping the crude oil via ocean tanker to the VIZAG refinery on the east coast of 

India. The refinery module is customized to reflect the specific electricity and thermal energy 

consumption of VIZAG (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited 2008). Refined diesel is then 

shipped via rail to the fueling depot at Bhilai, near Raipur, for use in transport vehicles.

Table 3. Base case data inputs for petroleum diesel production and distribution*

Parameter Value Units Assumptions/Notes Source

Foreign Crude 

Oil

0.75 Mass fraction Fraction of India’s crude oil from 

foreign sources

Sarin 2008e

Domestic Crude 

Oil

0.25 Mass fraction Fraction of India’s crude oil from 

domestic sources

Sarin 2008e

Foreign Crude 

Oil Transport

7,000 km Transport distance by ocean 

tanker between Middle East and 

VIZAG Refinery

Distances 2008

Domestic Crude 

Oil Transport

3,200 km Transport distance by ocean 

tanker between Bombay High 

and VIZAG Refinery

Distances 2008

Rail Distribution 

of Diesel Fuel

600 km Distance diesel fuel travels by 

rail from VIZAG oil terminal to 

Bhilai

Distance Calculator 

India 2008

Electricity 

consumption

31.91 kWh/tonne 

crude oil 

processed

Specific electricity consumption 

for refinery operations at VIZAG

Hindustan Petroleum 

Corporation Limited 

2008

Thermal energy 

consumption

1,550 MJ/tonne 

crude oil 

processed

Specific thermal energy 

consumption for refinery 

operations at VIZAG

Hindustan Petroleum 

Corporation Limited 

2008

* Characteristics of all transport modes are reported in Table 11. 
25 

4.2 Jatropha Cultivation

Modeling the cultivation of Jatropha trees and the operation of the plantation requires data on 

numerous inputs including fertilizer use, irrigation water (for both plantation establishment and 

ongoing cultivation), electricity, and diesel fuel along with parameters such as the rate of N2O 

release from nitrogen fertilizer. This portion of the model carries the greatest uncertainty as 

deterministic correlations amongst cultivation parameters, including environmental conditions 

and human inputs, are not well established. Figure 11 outlines the processes included in the 

modeling of Jatropha cultivation. 

Figure 11. Modeling schematic for Jatropha cultivation processes

Table 4 describes the purpose of each module utilized in the analysis of Jatropha cultivation. 

Table 5 summarizes key base case input parameters for Jatropha cultivation. 

The nitrous oxide release rate in Table 5 represents the default value of 0.01 g N2O/g N in 

fertilizer reported by IPCC (2006) from a stated range of 0.003–0.03 g N2O/g N in fertilizer. The 

emission factor accounts for direct emissions from a variety of organic and synthetic nitrogen 

fertilizers. It also accounts for crop residue and mineralization of organic carbon in the soil that 

are due to land management and land-use changes. The emission factor does not include 

secondary or indirect emission sources of N2O such as leached nitrogen (N) entering water 

systems, crop residue being plowed into the fields for successor crops, or dung and urine being 

produced by animals that feed on the crops. Crutzen et al. (2008) use a top-down calculation 

method to suggest that the actual N2O-N emission factor may be 3-5 times larger than the default 

IPCC value (ranging from 0.03–0.05 g N2O/g N in fertilizer). The impact of the uncertainty in 

this parameter on overall study results is tested in the sensitivity analysis. 

The plantation electricity parameter is also uncertain, as Lele (2008b) does not explicitly state 

what plantation operations are included in this estimate. We consider Lele’s estimate of 

plantation electricity use a likely upper bound as it may double count some of the electricity 

required for plantation processes such as irrigation and oil extraction that are modeled separately.

The module used to evaluate irrigation impacts is based on an ecoinvent 2.0 European irrigation 

module that may assume more energy consumption than would be present in an Indian irrigation 

system if either drip or manual irrigation were used. However, data describing the energy 
26

consumption by Indian irrigation systems was lacking in the literature. Parametric sensitivity 

analyses (see Section 7.2) indicated that the modeled energy use of the irrigation system has a 

negligible impact on results.

Table 4. SimaPro module descriptions for Jatropha cultivation

Module Name Module Purpose Comments

Polyethylene Bag 

Production

This ecoinvent 2.0 module calculates the impacts 

of producing and transporting the polyethylene 

used in the Jatropha seedling bags at the 

nursery.

Each Jatropha seedling is 

generally raised in a 

polyethylene bag for the first 

few months.

Tillage and 

Ploughing

This ecoinvent 2.0 module calculates the impacts 

of the mechanized clearing and preparing of the 

required land for developing the Jatropha 

plantation.

The base case assumes that 

50,000 hectares are cleared for 

plantation land based on IOC 

guidance. 

Irrigation by 

Hectare

This ecoinvent 2.0 module calculates the impacts 

of irrigating the plantation area during initial 

planting of the trees to aid establishment.

Irrigation data are not well 

established for Jatropha 

plantations. The best available 

data are used and tested in 

sensitivity analyses. 

Jatropha Seedling 

for Planting

This custom module is designed to represent the 

requirements for the cultivation of Jatropha 

seedlings at the nursery. The nursery is likely to 

be located at or near the plantation. 

Information for this module is 

incomplete as only the 

polyethylene bag requirement 

is known. Better data are 

needed to identify energy 

requirements of the nursery. 

However, impacts are likely 

very small.

Jatropha 

Plantation, 

Planted, India

This custom module calls the required number of 

seedlings, fertilizer, tillage and plowing, and 

irrigation water to establish the Jatropha trees on 

the plantation. The output is a hectare of planted 

Jatropha plantation.

The impacts for operating and 

managing the plantation are 

separately tracked in the 

“Jatropha Seeds Harvested 

from Plantation” module.

Jatropha Seeds 

Harvested from 

Plantation

This custom module quantifies all of the impacts 

associated with operating and managing the 

plantation after the establishment period. 

Plantation management impacts are normalized 

per tonne of seeds produced. Jatropha fruit 

harvesting and de-husking are assumed to be 

done with manual labor. Combustion of Jatropha 

husk and biomass from pruning is assumed to 

offset delivered Indian electricity (i.e., including 

Indian transmission and distribution losses).

This module calls the required 

inputs from the fertilizer and 

irrigation modules along with 

electricity and diesel fuel for 

plantation operation and 

contains much of the model’s 

uncertainty.

Urea Production, 

Transport, & 

Application

This ecoinvent 2.0 module quantifies the impacts 

of producing, transporting, and applying urea to 

provide the required amount of nitrogen to the 

plantation.

Required fertilizer levels are not 

well defined for the 

management of Jatropha 

plantations.

Single Super 

Phosphate 

Production, 

Transport, & 

Application

This ecoinvent 2.0 module quantifies the impacts 

of producing, transporting, and applying single 

super phosphate to provide the required amount 

of phosphate to the plantation.

Required fertilizer levels are not 

well defined for the 

management of Jatropha 

plantations.

Potassium 

Chloride 

Production, 

Transport, & 

This ecoinvent 2.0 module quantifies the impacts 

of producing, transporting, and applying 

potassium chloride to provide the required 

amount of potassium.

Required fertilizer levels are not 

well defined for the 

management of Jatropha 

plantations.
27

Module Name Module Purpose Comments

Application

Irrigation by 

Hectare

This ecoinvent 2.0 modules account for the 

impacts of irrigating one hectare of land during 

plantation establishment.

Irrigation required for plantation 

establishment is estimated 

based on European averages, 

as Indian-specific data for 

Jatropha cultivation was 

unavailable.

Irrigation Water 

Required

This ecoinvent 2.0 module accounts for the 

impacts of applying the required levels of 

irrigation water to the plantation for ongoing 

Jatropha cultivation and maintenance. 

The required amount of water is 

calculated based on the 

anticipated water requirement 

per week of the growing season 

and the fraction of required 

water assumed to be met by 

rainfall.

Table 5. Base case data inputs for Jatropha cultivation

Base case assumes no application of pesticides, herbicides, or insecticides.

Parameter Value Units Assumptions/Notes Source

Life cycle 20 years Defines the lifetime over 

which all inputs and outputs 

are tracked

Reinhardt et al. 

2007

Plantation 

Location

Raipur 

area

Chhattisgarh

India

Target plantation location 

selected by IOC

Sarin 2008b

Plantation 

Rainfall

1,385 mm/yr Average rainfall for Raipur Chhattisgarh 

Online 2008

Plantation Size 50,000 Hectares Based on IOC anticipated 

plantation size

Sarin 2008b

Seedling 

Survival Rate

0.8 Surviving 

seedlings/total 

seedling planted

Represents Jatropha seedling 

survival rate of 80% under 

average planting conditions

Lele 2008a; 

Renewable 

Energy U.K. 

site 2008

Tree Density 2,500 Trees/hectare Assumed initial Jatropha tree 

density based on Planning 

Commission assumptions

Planning 

Commission 

2003

Years Required 

for Irrigation

3 Years Reinhardt et al.’s optimized 

scenario assumes irrigation is 

only required for the first three 

years of plantation 

establishment

Reinhardt et al. 

2008

Jatropha Water 

Requirement

6 Liters per tree per 

week

Total water required per 

Jatropha tree from rainfall and 

irrigation during the growing 

season based on potential 

evapotranspiration

Kheira and Atta 

2008

Growing 

Season Weeks

30 Weeks/year Length of the annual Jatropha 

growing season including 

initial development, flowering, 

and harvesting

Kheira and Atta 

2008

Water 

Requirement 

Met

100 % Percent of the Jatropha water 

requirement met through the 

combination of rain and 

Base case 

assumption
28

Parameter Value Units Assumptions/Notes Source

irrigation water

Fraction Met 

with Irrigation

0.2 Mass fraction Fraction of Jatropha water 

requirement met with irrigation 

water during years in which 

irrigation is used in order to 

ensure adequate water is 

delivered at the required times

Base case 

assumption

Fertilizer 

Application

2 Applications/year Assumes one fertilizer 

application each at the 

beginning and end of the rainy 

season

Lele 2008a

Urea Fertilizer 

Required

81 kg/ha-yr Urea fertilizer use based on 

the Optimized scenario of 

Reinhardt et al. Reinhardt 

assumed a density of 1,667 

trees/hectare, which is scaled 

to the base case density

Reinhardt et al. 

2008

P2O5 Fertilizer 

Required

31 kg/ha-yr P2O5 fertilizer use based on 

the Optimized scenario of 

Reinhardt et al.

Reinhardt et al. 

2008

K2O Fertilizer 

Required 

89 kg/ha-yr K2O fertilizer use based on 

the Optimized scenario of 

Reinhardt et al.

Reinhardt et al. 

2008

Diesel Fuel 

Required

86 liters/ha-yr Diesel fuel use based on the 

Optimized scenario of 

Reinhardt et al.

Reinhardt et al. 

2008

Nitrous Oxide 

Release 

0.01 g N2O/g N in 

fertilizer

Fraction of nitrogen contained 

in fertilizer that is released to 

the air based on IPCC’s 

default value for N2O 

emissions from nitrogen 

fertilizers

IPCC 2006

Oil Content of 

Jatropha Seed

0.35 Mass oil/mass total 

seed

Assumed average oil content 

of dry seed on mass basis; 

matches assumption of the 

Indian Planning Commission

Achten et al. 

2008

Plantation 

Electricity

12,000 MWh/yr Approximate electricity 

required to operate a 50,000 

hectare plantation for one 

year

Lele 2008b

Seed Husk 

Yield

1,429 kg sun dried 

husks/ha-yr

Estimated seed husk yield 

after seed extraction and 

assuming water content of 

9%. Based on the Optimized 

scenario of Reinhardt et al.

Reinhardt et al. 

2008

Seed Husk 

Energy Density

15.5 MJ/kg Gross energy content of the 

dry matter of Jatropha seed 

husks

Reinhardt et al. 

2008

Jatropha Seed 

Yield

1.5 kg sun dried 

seeds/tree-yr

Estimated Jatropha seed yield 

per tree based on Planning 

Commission assumptions 

Planning 

Commission 

2003

Biomass Yield, 

Year 1

2.5 kg biomass/tree IOC supplied estimate of first 

year biomass yield from 

pruning

Sarin 2008c
29

Parameter Value Units Assumptions/Notes Source

Biomass Yield 

Year 2

4.5 kg biomass/tree IOC supplied estimate of 

second year biomass yield 

from pruning

Sarin 2008c

Biomass Yield 

from Mature 

Jatropha Plants

8.5 kg biomass/tree IOC supplied estimate of 

biomass yield from pruning 

mature Jatropha trees

Sarin 2008c

Mass Fraction 

Stems

0.67 Mass fraction Based on approximate 

breakdown of dried Jatropha 

plant biomass; remaining 

mass fraction is comprised of 

leaves

Nivitchanyong 

2007

Energy Density 

of Leaves

3.6 MJ/kg Gross specific energy content 

of Jatropha leaves

Nivitchanyong 

2007

Energy Density 

of Stems

3.9 MJ/kg Gross specific energy content 

of Jatropha stems

Nivitchanyong 

2007

Seed 

Transportation

50 km Assumed distance for 

Jatropha seeds to be 

transported by truck from 

plantation to oil extraction unit

Base Case 

Assumption

4.3 Jatropha Oil Extraction

The process of extracting the oil from Jatropha seeds that is considered in this study is a 

continuous solvent process. While limited data describing this process have been published, the 

data used to model the base case are India-specific. An extraction efficiency of 91% is assumed 

(Planning Commission 2003). Figure 12 highlights the processes used to model Jatropha oil 

extraction while Table 6 describes the modules.

Figure 12. Modeling schematic for Jatropha oil extraction processes
30

Table 6. SimaPro module descriptions for Jatropha oil extraction

Module Name Module Purpose Comments

Indian Electricity 

Delivered

This custom module represents the Indian electric grid 

mix supplied to the oil extraction unit.

See Section 0 for more 

details on the Indian 

Electricity module.

Jatropha Oil at 

Solvent Extraction 

Facility, India

This custom module calculates the impacts of 

continuous solvent-based Jatropha oil extraction. 

Amortized infrastructure of an oil extraction facility in 

Western Europe is included. The process produces 

Jatropha oil that is transported to the 

transesterification plant, and de-oiled seed cake that is 

returned to the plantation as a fertilizer.

This module calls the 

required inputs for 

electricity, steam, hexane, 

and water needed to 

operate continuously.

Steam Generation This ecoinvent 2.0 module calculates the impacts of 

generating and delivering the steam required for the oil 

extraction process.

Generic steam production 

is used because of a lack 

of information on Indiaspecific processes for 

generating steam for oil 

extraction.

Hexane 

Production and 

Transport

This ecoinvent 2.0 module quantifies the impacts of 

producing and transporting the hexane that is used as 

the solvent in the Jatropha oil extraction process.

Hexane is the only solvent 

used on a commercial 

scale for oil extraction at 

this time.

Tap Water Supply This ecoinvent 2.0 module quantifies the impacts of 

supplying tap water to the oil extraction facility for use 

in the oil extraction process.

The module is based on 

Western European data as 

India-specific water 

production and delivery 

data are unavailable.

Table 7 reports key base case data inputs used to model Jatropha oil extraction via a continuous 

solvent extraction process.

Table 7. Base case data inputs for Jatropha oil extraction 

Parameter Value Units Assumptions/Notes Source

Extraction 

Efficiency

91% Mass percent Percent of Jatropha oil available in seeds 

extracted via solvent extraction

Planning 

Commission 

2003

Electricity Use 55 kWh/tonne of 

seed input

Average electricity use for continuous 

solvent extraction per metric ton (tonne) 

of Jatropha seed input

Adriaans 2006

Hexane Use 4 kg /tonne of 

seed input

Average amount of hexane used in 

continuous solvent extraction (99% is 

recycled)

Adriaans 2006; 

Sarin 2008c

Steam Use 280 kg /tonne of 

seed input

Average amount of steam suitable for 

chemical processes required for 

continuous solvent extraction

Adriaans 2006

Water Use 12 m3

/tonne of 

seed input

Average amount of water required for 

continuous solvent extraction (consumed 

and discharged to sewer)

Adriaans 2006

Jatropha Oil 

Transportation

0 Km Assumes oil extraction facility is colocated with the transesterification plantSarin 2008c
31

4.4 Biodiesel Production via Jatropha Oil Transesterification

The study focuses on base-catalyzed transesterification of Jatropha oil to biodiesel because this is 

the process that is promoted by the Planning Commission (2003). The modeled 

transesterification facility has a production capacity of 100,000 metric tonnes per annum 

(MTPA) to match the assumed facility size in the Planning Commission report. A 2008Indian 

Oil Research and Development Centre survey of biodiesel production facilities in India 

conducted for the Indian Ministry of Renewable Energy identified 14 facilities with capacities of 

at least 10,000 MTPA with 5 facilities having capacities of at least 100,000 MTPA (Puri 2009), 

so the assumption of 100,000 MTPA used in this research is warranted. Figure 13 outlines the 

important processes included in the model while Table 8 describes each module and Table 9

outlines the key parameters. The glycerol generated by the transesterification process is further 

refined to glycerine to make the quality suitable for the Indian market. The electricity and steam 

consumption values in Table 9 represent the energy consumed for both biodiesel 

transesterification and glycerol purification to glycerine.

Figure 13. Modeling schematic for biodiesel production via Jatropha oil transesterification 

processes
32

Table 8. SimaPro module descriptions for biodiesel production via Jatropha oil transesterification 

Module Name Module Purpose Comments

Indian Electricity 

Delivered

This custom module represents the Indian 

electric grid mix supplied to the biodiesel 

production unit.

See Section 0 for more details on 

the Indian Electricity module.

Biodiesel Production, 

Base-catalyzed 

Transesterification, 

India

This custom module calculates the 

impacts of biodiesel production via basecatalyzed Jatropha oil transesterification. 

Infrastructure of a transesterification 

facility in Western Europe is amortized. 

The process produces biodiesel to be 

transported to end users and glycerol to 

offset synthetic glycerine production.

This module calls the required 

inputs of electricity, steam, 

potassium hydroxide, methanol, 

and water needed to operate. 

Approximately 50% of supplied 

methanol is recovered and recycled 

for re-use in the process (SRS 

Engineering 2009).

Steam Generation This ecoinvent 2.0 module calculates the 

impacts of generating and delivering the 

steam required for the transesterification 

process.

Production of steam suitable for 

chemical processes is used 

because of a lack of information on 

India-specific processes for 

generating steam for 

transesterification

Potassium Hydroxide 

Production and 

Transport

This ecoinvent 2.0 module quantifies the 

impacts of producing and transporting the 

potassium hydroxide that is the base 

catalyst for the transesterification process.

Potassium hydroxide production is 

modeled based on Western 

European conditions because of a 

lack of data on Indian production.

Methanol Production 

and Transport

This ecoinvent 2.0 module quantifies the 

impacts of producing and transporting the 

methanol that is used as the alcohol for 

the transesterification process.

Methanol production is modeled 

based on Western European 

conditions because of a lack of 

data on Indian production. Source 

of methanol is natural gas.

Glycerine from 

Epicholorhydrin

This 2.0 module quantifies the impacts 

that are offset through the generation of 

the co-product glycerol replacing some 

synthetic glycerine production. 

The module is based on Western 

European conditions because of a 

lack of Indian data.
33

Table 9. Base case data inputs for biodiesel transesterification via Jatropha oil transesterification

Parameter Value Units Assumptions/Notes Source

Conversion 

Efficiency

95% Mass percent Conversion efficiency of Jatropha 

oil to biodiesel

Lele 2008c

Electricity Use 38 kWh/tonne of 

biodiesel 

produced

Electricity use based on a 100,000 

tonne biodiesel/year plant

Planning Commission 

2003; Lele 2008d 

Steam Use 851 kg/tonne of 

biodiesel 

produced

Steam use based on a 100,000 

tonne biodiesel/year plant

Planning Commission 

2003; Lele 2008d

Water Use 55 m3 circulated Water is circulated, not consumed, 

so the amount reported here is for 

initial loading of the system.

Planning Commission 

2003

Base Catalyst 

Required (KOH)

18 kg /tonne of 

biodiesel 

produced

KOH used as base catalyst for a 

100,000 tonne biodiesel/year plant

Planning Commission 

2003

Methanol 

Required

110 kg/tonne of 

biodiesel 

produced

Methanol use based on a 100,000 

tonne biodiesel/year plant; amount 

of methanol consumed, data on 

methanol recycling incorporated

Planning Commission 

(2003)

Mineral Acid 

Required

6 kg/tonne of 

biodiesel 

produced

Sulfuric acid used to represent the 

required mineral acid

Planning Commission 

(2003)

Glycerine Yield 0.08 Mass fraction Mass fraction yield of glycerine as 

co-product during production of 

biodiesel

Lele (2008d)

Biodiesel 

Transportation

20 km Distance between the 

transesterification facility at Raipur 

and the Bhilai fuel depots

Distance Calculator 

India (2008)

4.5 Vehicle Operation

Both the reference-petroleum diesel life cycle and the comparison-blended biodiesel scenarios 

end with the fuels being combusted to operate transport vehicles in India. Road transit is 

examined for both freight transport in long-distance trucks and passenger transport in buses. Rail 

transit is analyzed for both IR freight and passenger trains. This module also includes blending 

the fuels, distributing blended fuels to fueling stations, and fueling transport vehicles. Figure 14

displays the primary SimaPro modules for analyzing the vehicle operation, while Table 10

describes each process and Table 11outlines the key parameters.

Note that fuel consumption per GTK data for the Indian road freight transport sector was not 

available in the literature. As a result, European trucking data was used as a proxy. It is possible 

that the use of European trucking data will underestimate specific fuel consumption for Indian 

road freight transport. However, Whitaker (2007) discussed that Indian buses consume less fuel 

than U.S. buses, due in part to fewer auxiliary systems and lighter vehicle weights, so the 

direction of the bias of the proxy data is not clear on a per GTK basis. The use of this proxy data 

will only affect the relative GHG emissions and petroleum consumption between transport 

modes (e.g., road freight vs. road passenger) while not affecting the percentage changes in GHG 

emissions or petroleum consumption for biodiesel blends compared with conventional petroleum 

diesel for a selected transport mode (e.g., road freight B20 vs. road freight diesel).
34

Figure 14. Modeling schematic for transport vehicle operation

Table 10. SimaPro module descriptions for vehicle operation

Module Name Module Purpose Comments

Indian Electricity 

Delivered

This custom module represents the Indian electric grid 

mix supplied to the biodiesel blending unit.

See Section 4.6 for 

more details on the 

Indian Electricity 

module.

Biodiesel Blending, 

India, At Processing 

Facility

This custom module calls biodiesel from the 

transesterification plant and diesel fuel at regional 

storage and blends them using Indian electricity into the 

desired mix for the analysis.

Analyzed biodiesel 

blends include 0%, 

5%, 10%, 20%, and 

100%.

Fuel Transport This ecoinvent 2.0 module calculates the impacts of 

transporting the blended biodiesel a short distance via 

truck from the Bhilai depot to the fueling location for 

fueling locomotives (freight and passenger), trucks, and 

buses.

Blended biodiesel 

transport has a small 

impact in the overall 

life cycle.

Passenger-rail 

Transport

This custom module calls the required amount of blended 

biodiesel to operate a passenger locomotive over the 

entire life cycle. Carbon dioxide emissions from the diesel 

portion of the blended biodiesel are also calculated in this 

module.

The base case 

analysis assumes an 

operating lifetime of 2 

billion GTK.

Freight-rail 

Transport

This custom module calls the required amount of blended 

biodiesel to operate a freight locomotive over the entire 

life cycle. Carbon dioxide emissions from the diesel 

portion of the blended biodiesel are also calculated in this 

module.

The base case 

analysis assumes an 

operating lifetime of 2 

billion GTK.

Passenger BusRoad TransportThis custom module calls the required amount of blended 

biodiesel to operate a bus over the entire life cycle. 

Carbon dioxide emissions from the diesel portion of the 

blended biodiesel are also calculated in this module.

The base case 

analysis assumes an 

operating lifetime of 2 

billion GTK.

Freight-Road 

Transport

This custom module calls the required amount of blended 

biodiesel to operate a truck over the entire life cycle. 

Carbon dioxide emissions from the diesel portion of the 

blended biodiesel are also calculated in this module.

The base case 

analysis assumes an 

operating lifetime of 2 

billion GTK.
35

Table 11. Base case data inputs for transport vehicle operation

Parameter Value Units Assumptions/Notes Source

Biodiesel Blend 0.0,

0.05,

0.1,

0.2,

1.0

Fraction biodiesel by 

volume

Base analysis covers 0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 100% 

biodiesel blends.

Sarin 2008a; Kathpal 

2008

Biodiesel Efficiency 0 Fractional reduction in 

fuel economy due to 

biodiesel blend

Preliminary IR field trials showed a negligible negative 

effect in volumetric fuel consumption for B5, B10, and B20 

(checked through sensitivity analysis).

Kathpal 2008; Skinner et 

al. 2007; Basha et al. 

2009

Calorific Value 

Biodiesel

39,500 kJ/kg Estimated calorific values of biodiesel and diesel provided 

by IOC. Used to normalize results per fuel energy 

delivered Sarin 2008a

Calorific Value 

Diesel

42,000 kJ/kg

Specific Gravity 

Biodiesel

0.88 kg/liter Specific gravity of 100% biodiesel used in model 

conversions

Planning Commission 

2003; Gubler 2006

Specific Gravity 

Diesel

0.84 kg/liter Specific gravity of diesel fuel used in the model 

conversions

Planning Commission 

2003;Gubler 2006

Diesel Fuel 

Consumption 

(Freight Locomotive)

2.63 liters diesel/1,000 GTK Average fuel consumption for Indian Railways freight 

trains; gross tonnage includes weight of both train and 

cargo

Indian Railways 2008

Diesel Fuel 

Consumption 

(Passenger 

Locomotive)

4.38 liters diesel/1,000 GTK Average fuel consumption for Indian Railways passenger 

trains; gross tonnage includes weight of both train and 

passengers

Indian Railways 2008

Diesel Fuel 

Consumption (Long 

Distance Truck)

12.8 liters diesel/1,000 GTK Average fuel consumption for long distance trucks based 

on European data used for base case; urban trucks 

consume approximately 28.8 liters diesel/1,000 GTK.

European Automobile 

Manufacturers 

Association 2009, p. 6

Diesel Fuel 

Consumption (Bus)

3.94 kilometers/liter Average fuel consumption for the bus fleet in Chennai, 

India

Metropolitan Transport 

Corporation Chennai 

2009a
36

Parameter Value Units Assumptions/Notes Source

Bus Operational 

Weight

15 Tonnes Operational weight of bus plus passengers for typical 

Indian transit bus

Metropolitan Transport 

Corporation Chennai 

2009b; Whitaker 2007

Diesel Fuel 

Consumption (Bus)

16.9 liters diesel/1,000 GTK Fuel consumption for passenger bus converted to fuel 

consumption per 1,000 GTK based on bus weight and fuel 

consumption per kilometer

Calculated

Lifetime Gross 

Tonne Kilometers 

(GTK)

2 

billion

Total GTK analyzed 

over vehicle life cycle

Lifetime GTK calculated based on assumption of a 20–yr. 

system lifetime and average operation of Indian Railways 

locomotives of 100 million GTK per year; the functional 

unit for this study is 1,000 GTK. 

Indian Railways 2008

Diesel CO2 Emission 

Factor

2.68 kg CO2/liter of diesel 

combusted

CO2 emission factor for the combustion of diesel fuel in 

road and rail vehicles

The Climate Registry 

2008

Biodiesel CO2

Emission Factor

0 kg CO2/liter of biodiesel 

combusted

Combustion of 100% biodiesel assumed to emit no CO2

emissions to account for the carbon sequestered in 

Jatropha during cultivation

By definition
37

4.6 Supporting Processes

Many of the biodiesel processes, including cultivation, oil extraction, and transesterification, 

require supporting processes such as generation of electricity or transportation of goods. Many of 

the supporting processes (e.g. electricity generation and steam production) rely heavily on the 

direct combustion of fossil fuels leading them to be significant contributors to the life cycle GHG 

emissions for biodiesel production and use. An Indian-specific electricity-generation profile was 

created based on the national average annual proportion of electricity generation by fuel type. 

The impacts of each generating technology were calculated using ecoinvent 2.0 data modules as 

outlined in Figure 15 and described in Table 12. European electricity-generation technologies 

were used as proxies for Indian-specific plants owing to lack of Indian data. However, because 

the vast majority of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy use—at least for combustion 

systems—are inherent characteristics of the fuels rather than of the generation technologies, 

estimates based on European technologies should not differ significantly from those in India. In 

addition, use of Indian data on electricity generation by source provides useful customization 

(Table 13). 

The Indian electric grid suffers from significant electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) 

losses. The base case assumes T&D losses of 32% and includes impacts from T&D 

infrastructure in the calculations to test the potential impact of electricity infrastructure on the 

results (Indian Central Electricity Authority 2008). The inclusion of the T&D infrastructure 

proved to have a negligible impact on model results. Table 14 describes key ecoinvent 2.0 

modules for transportation.

Figure 15. Modeling schematic for Indian electricity
38

Table 12. SimaPro module descriptions for Indian electricity

Module Name Module Purpose Comments

Electricity 

Generation–

Natural Gas

This ecoinvent 2.0 module calculates 

the impacts of electricity generation 

from natural gas in Western Europe. 

Indian data were unavailable.

The amount of natural gas used in the 

Indian Electricity module is based on 

average annual electricity generation by 

fuel type in India.

Electricity 

Generation–Coal

This ecoinvent 2.0 module calculates 

the impacts of electricity generation 

from coal in Western Europe. Indian 

data were unavailable.

The amount of coal used in the Indian 

Electricity module is based on average 

annual electricity generation by fuel type in 

India.

Electricity 

Generation–

Nuclear

This ecoinvent 2.0 module calculates 

the impacts of electricity generation 

from nuclear energy in Western 

Europe. Indian data were unavailable.

The amount of nuclear power used in the 

Indian Electricity module is based on 

average annual electricity generation by 

fuel type in India.

Electricity 

Generation–

Hydropower

This ecoinvent 2.0 module calculates 

the impacts of electricity generation 

from hydropower in Western Europe. 

Indian data were unavailable.

The amount of hydropower used in the 

Indian Electricity module is based on 

average annual electricity generation by 

fuel type in India.

Electricity 

Generation–

Renewables

This module calls two ecoinvent 2.0 

modules that calculate the impacts of 

electricity generation from solar 

photovoltaics and wind energy in 

Western Europe. Indian data were 

unavailable.

Indian electricity generation data were listed 

with renewables as a category. To match 

with existing ecoinvent 2.0 modules, the 

authors assumed that 50% of the 

renewable electricity came from solar 

photovoltaics with the other 50% coming 

from wind.

Indian Electricity 

Generated

This custom module defines the source 

mix for Indian electricity using 

ecoinvent 2.0 modules for each 

generation type.

Indian Electricity 

Delivered

This custom module includes impacts 

from T&D infrastructure and accounts 

for transmission and distribution losses 

in India.

Transmission and distribution losses in 

India on a national average basis are 

greater than 30%.
39

Table 13. Base case data inputs for Indian electricity*

Fuel % Generation Source

Coal 70% Indian Central Electricity Authority (2008)

Natural Gas 12% U.S. Energy Information Administration (2007b)

Hydroelectric 15% U.S. Energy Information Administration (2007b)

Nuclear 2% U.S. Energy Information Administration (2007b)

Renewable (solar, wind, etc) 1% U.S. Energy Information Administration (2007b)

Transmission & Distribution Loss -32% Indian Central Electricity Authority (2008)

* Impacts from electricity infrastructure are included in the analysis. Transmission & Distribution Loss refers to 

national average electricity that is lost between generation and delivery to end users. U.S. Energy Information 

Administration (2007b) listed thermal energy generation as a combined category. Electricity generation was 

apportioned to coal and natural gas using the estimated generation capacities listed in Indian Central Electricity 

Authority (2008).

Table 14. SimaPro module descriptions for transportation of goods

Module Name Module Purpose Comments

Truck–Lorry This ecoinvent 2.0 module is used to calculate the 

impacts of road transport and associated infrastructure 

whenever truck transport is required in the model. 

Data are for Western 

European conditions. Indiaspecific data were not 

available.

Ocean Tanker This ecoinvent 2.0 module is used to calculate the 

impacts of transoceanic transport and associated 

infrastructure whenever ocean tanker transport is 

required in the model. 

Data are for Western 

European conditions. Indiaspecific data were not 

available.

Rail This ecoinvent 2.0 module is used to calculate the 

impacts of freight-rail transport and associated 

infrastructure whenever railcar transport is required in 

the model. 

Data are for Western 

European conditions. Indiaspecific data were not 

available.

Pipeline This ecoinvent 2.0 module is used to calculate the 

impacts of pipeline transport and associated 

infrastructure whenever pipeline transport is required in 

the model. 

Data are for Western 

European conditions. Indiaspecific data were not 

available.
40

5 Normalized Base Case Results

The base case results are presented using three impact assessment metrics, each normalized to 

the functional unit of this study of 1,000 GTK:

1. Net greenhouse gas emission intensity—net emissions of the IPCC-identified GHGs 

calculated with results grouped according to the six Kyoto Protocol gas classifications

(CO2, CH4, N2O, PFCs, HFCs, SF6) expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents (kilograms 

CO2e per 1,000 GTK).

2. Net energy value—useful fuel energy delivered to the transport vehicle minus cumulative 

energy demand of the system including offsets (Farrell et al. 2006). Net energy ratio 

(useful fuel energy delivered to the transport vehicle divided by the cumulative energy 

demand of the system) is de-emphasized but is presented for the base case to enable 

comparison with Whitaker and Heath (2009) and other biodiesel LCA studies.

3. Petroleum consumption and displacement intensity—crude oil consumption and 

displacement (kilograms crude oil per 1,000 GTK) for the biodiesel analysis scenarios 

compared with the conventional diesel baseline.

Base case results are presented for conventional diesel and biodiesel blends of B5, B10, and B20. 

Results for B100 (neat biodiesel), although not envisioned for use in the Indian transport system, 

are shown for informational purposes and to enable the reader to calculate results for other 

blends (by the linearly proportional combination of results for conventional diesel and B100). 

Section 7 explores the relative influence of certain key parameters. 

5.1 Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Table 15 presents the net life cycle GHG emissions normalized by the functional unit of the 

study (1,000 GTK). The percent change for each biodiesel blend compared with conventional 

diesel is also reported. The results suggest that, for the case considered and without considering 

the impact of land-use change or soil carbon sequestration, all modes and blends yield significant 

GHG-emission benefits over conventional diesel fuel use. Proportional reduction (“percent 

change from diesel”) is constant for all modes because the point of comparison is diesel fuel used 

in the same system and used with the same fuel economy. Thus, life cycle GHG emissions will 

decrease by approximately 3.4% for B5, 6.8% for B10, 14% for B20 and 72% for B100 

compared with conventional diesel emissions. Note that, as expected, GHG emission reductions 

trend proportionally with increasing biodiesel blend percent. The absolute GHG emissions for 

each transport vehicle are strongly dependent on the fuel consumption of the mode. As shown in 

Table 11, freight-rail transport is the most fuel-efficient mode followed by passenger-rail 

transport, freight-road transport, and passenger-road transport. The influence of the fuel economy 

on the life cycle GHG emissions is reflected in the results displayed in Table 15. 
41

Table 15. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e per 1,000 GTK) for the 

base cases for each of the four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight 7.9 7.6 7.4 6.8 2.3

Rail Transport–Passenger 13 13 12 11 3.8

Road Transport–Freight 39 37 36 33 11

Road Transport–Passenger 51 49 47 44 15

Percent Change from Diesel** - -3.4% -6.8% -14% -72%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** Percent change from the diesel reference system is constant for all transport modes as it is due to variations in the 

wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement (biodiesel compared to diesel) 

does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent changes reported here may not 

equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to independent rounding.

Jatropha biodiesel has a significant GHG-emission benefit compared to petroleum diesel, 

according to the analysis of the base case conditions considered in this study and without 

considering the impacts of land-use change or soil carbon sequestration. Table 16 shows these 

results on the basis of one MJ of fuel combusted in the vehicle to remove the influence of the 

fuels’ end use efficiency in the various transport vehicles. This analysis can be deemed well-topump (WTP) as it includes all biodiesel and diesel stages required to produce, transport, and 

deliver the fuels to the pump. For GHG-emission calculations, the carbon content of the fuels 

delivered to the vehicles is included in the analysis to account for the study methodology, which 

assigns no carbon credit to Jatropha biodiesel for plant growth but which also assumes no CO2

emissions from biodiesel combustion. Carbon contents of diesel and biodiesel must be included 

in the WTP analysis in order to compare GHG emission on an equal basis. The results reported 

in Table 15, as well as all subsequent calculations that are presented on a per 1,000 GTK basis, 

include operation of the vehicles and the associated differences in fuel economies for the 

analyzed transport modes. The percent changes from diesel are identical in Table 15 and Table 

16 because all GHG-emission differences stem from the fuel processing and delivery portion of 

the life cycle and not the vehicle operation phase (under base case conditions). 

Table 16. Well-to-pump GHG emissions (g CO2e/MJ fuel) for Jatropha biodiesel and conventional 

diesel plus carbon content of fuel

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

GHG Emission Intensity 85 82 79 74 24

Percent Change from Diesel - -3.4% -6.8% -14% -72%

The results shown in Table 15 and Table 16 demonstrate that net GHG emissions reductions 

compared to petroleum diesel are proportional to the biodiesel content of the fuel. This result is 

mainly a consequence of the modeling assumption that all CO2 emitted during combustion of 

biodiesel in vehicles are offset by CO2 uptake during growth of the Jatropha plants (assuming 

non-CO2 GHG emissions from biodiesel combustion are negligible), whereas considerable CO2

is emitted during combustion of diesel fuel by the vehicles. 
42

Also, identifying the life cycle processes responsible for the greatest contribution of GHG 

emissions is informative. Identifying key processes can better focus sensitivity analyses to test 

the assumptions in those modules and to determine which parameters are likely to be critical in 

potentially changing the conclusions of the study. As Table 17 shows, vehicle operations are 

responsible for 89% of diesel life cycle GHG emissions trending down to 83% for B20. Vehicle 

operations account for 0% of the B100 GHG emissions because biodiesel combustion in vehicles 

is assumed to be carbon neutral over the life cycle, as explained in Section 3. 

Table 17. Life cycle GHG process contributions by fuel blend*

Process Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Vehicle Operations 89% 88% 86% 83% 0%

Fuel Production and 

Processing 11% 12% 14% 17% 100%

* These results are independent of the vehicle transport mode.

To better understand the life cycle processes that contribute most to the net GHG emissions, 

Table 18 and Table 19 respectively report process contribution results for biodiesel and 

conventional diesel with the influence of the vehicle operations stage removed. For biodiesel, 

Table 18 shows the process contributions to the field-to-pump GHG emissions (defined by the 

life cycle excluding vehicle operation) because the vehicle operation stage does not add any 

GHG emissions to the results. Note that the energy used for fertilizer application is assumed to 

be the same for both chemical fertilizer and Jatropha seed cake. For diesel, Table 19 displays the 

process contributions that comprise the 11% of life cycle GHG emissions that are emitted during 

the fuel production and processing phases.
43

Table 18. Contributions to field-to-pump (life cycle excluding vehicle operation) GHG emissions 

for biodiesel production from Jatropha*

Process Percent Contribution

Jatropha Cultivation 16%

N2O Release from Fertilizer 22%

Irrigation 0.30%

Fertilizer Application 4.5%

Net Contribution of Chemical Fertilizer Production Minus Offsets 

from Use of Jatropha Seed Cake as a Chemical Fertilizer 

Substitute

-11%

Jatropha Oil Extraction 1.2%

Hexane Production (accounting for recycling) 1.2%

Base-catalyzed Transesterification -30%

Methanol Production (accounting for recycling) 8.4%

Potassium Hydroxide Production 3.6%

Glycerine Offset -42%

Supporting Processes 110%

Indian Electricity (including offset from combustion of trimmings) 55%

Truck Transport 2.5%

Steam Production 43%

Diesel Fuel 5.0%

Tap Water 1.3%

* Percent contributions for each process to total GHG emissions are displayed. Negative percentages represent 

emission credits due to boundary expansion (co-product offsets). Column totals may not sum to 100% because of 

rounding and contributions of minor processes throughout the life cycle. Indian electricity and steam production 

contribute to impacts for multiple life cycle stages but are aggregated separately because of model limitations. 

Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

The results in Table 18 are separated into four main categories: Jatropha cultivation, Jatropha oil 

extraction, base-catalyzed transesterification, and supporting processes. Positive percentages 

contribute to the total net GHG emissions while negative percentages indicate credits that are 

deducted from net GHG emissions. 

Supporting processes are the largest contributors to net GHG emissions. These processes include 

resources—such as Indian electricity, truck transport, steam production, diesel fuel usage in 

agricultural equipment and other engines—that are used across multiple modules and tend to 

require the direct combustion of fossil fuels resulting in GHG emissions. The modeling and 

reporting in SimaPro 7.1 makes it difficult to partition these impacts to individual processes such 

as oil extraction and transesterification, but the results highlight the importance of minimizing 

these inputs wherever possible in order to achieve GHG-emission reductions.

The primary contributor to GHG emissions from the cultivation life cycle stage is volatilization 

of gaseous N2O following the application of chemical nitrogen fertilizer, accounting for

approximately 22% of field-to-pump GHG emissions associated with the production of Jatropha 

biodiesel. The impact of uncertainty in the rate of N2O emissions on life cycle GHG emissions is 

further tested in Section 7. Mechanical fertilizer application accounts for less than 5% of field-topump GHG emissions, while fertilizer production actually leads to a GHG-emission offset as 

credit is taken for the use of Jatropha seed cake to offset the production of inorganic fertilizers. 

The application of irrigation water accounts for less than 1% of field-to-pump GHG emissions.
44

Hexane production for Jatropha oil extraction contributes just over 1% to field-to-pump GHG 

emissions. (The electricity and steam required to operate the Jatropha oil solvent extraction 

process are accounted for as supporting processes.) The production processes for methanol and 

potassium hydroxide for base-catalyzed transesterification are energy intensive and combine to 

account for nearly 12% of field-to-pump GHG emissions. Significant GHG-emission credits are 

realized from offsetting the production of synthetic glycerine with the glycerine that is produced 

from the refining of the glycerol produced during biodiesel transesterification.

Table 19. Process contributions to well-to-pump GHG emissions for the production and 

distribution of diesel fuel (vehicle operation excluded)

Process Percent Contribution

Crude Oil 31%

Crude Oil Extraction 24%

Crude Oil Ocean Tanker Transport 7.2%

Diesel Refining 59%

Diesel Distribution and Fueling 10%

As a reminder, the GHG emissions shown in Table 19 represent only 11% of the well-to-pump 

GHG emissions for conventional diesel production and use. Within this context, diesel refining 

emits the highest proportion of GHGs, accounting for nearly 60%, with diesel distribution and 

fueling accounting for only about 10%. The remaining GHG emissions are from the extraction 

and transport of crude oil from both the Middle East and from offshore at the Bombay High oil 

field.

Analyzing the proportionate contribution of each major GHG to net carbon dioxide equivalent 

emissions and examining how those contributions vary across different biodiesel blends is also 

informative. The results in Table 20 are presented on a WTP basis to remove the influence of 

fuel combustion in vehicle operation phase, which almost exclusively emits CO2. The goal is to 

better understand the proportional contribution of various GHGs throughout the production and 

processing of both Jatropha biodiesel and conventional diesel. The categories of gases 

considered in this analysis include CO2, CH4, N2O, PFCs, HFCs, and SF6. 

Table 20. Contribution by GHG to well-to-pump life cycle

global warming potential*

Greenhouse Gas Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

CO2 93% 90% 88% 85% 71%

CH4 6.6% 6.5% 6.4% 6.3% 5.7%

N2O 0.66% 3.2% 5.4% 9.2% 24%

HFCs, PFCs, SF6 (combined) 0.13% 0.11% 0.088% 0.054% -0.076%

* Percentages are based on carbon dioxide equivalents using global warming potentials from IPCC 2007 as shown in 

Table 1. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty. 

As shown in Table 20, CO2 has the greatest contribution in all scenarios, as would be expected 

for a life cycle that heavily relies on combustion of fossil fuels. CO2 contributes from 93% of 

well-to-pump GHG emissions for diesel to 71% for B100. Methane and N2O emissions 

constitute the majority of the remainder depending on the biodiesel blend, where methane 

emissions are a greater contributor to well/field-to-pump GHG emissions for diesel through B10. 
45

As the biodiesel blend percentage increases, additional fertilizer is required to grow the seeds to 

meet the biodiesel demand resulting in greater N2O contributions to well/field-to-pump 

emissions. N2O emissions contribute from less than 1% of total GHG emissions in the diesel case 

up to approximately 24% of well/field-to-pump GHG emissions for B100. This contribution can 

increase even more if greater volatilization rates of N2O from nitrogen fertilizer during plantation 

operation are assumed. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 combined contribute less than 0.2% to well/fieldto-pump GHG emissions for diesel and all biodiesel blends.

5.2 Net Energy Value

Net energy value measures whether more useful energy output is realized from a system than is 

input, accounting for offsets from co-products. As the NEV formula simply subtracts inputs from 

outputs, whether offsets are added to energy outputs or subtracted from energy inputs is 

irrelevant. Biologically based products such as Jatropha biodiesel can have positive net energy 

values because solar energy used for plant growth is not accounted for in the equation. The most 

desirable systems have positive net energy values; the greater the NEV—even if less negative 

than an alternative system with a larger negative NEV—the more efficient that system is. 

In this study, NEV is calculated as: 

NEV = Energy Out (MJ) – Net Energy Demand (MJ) (1)

where, Energy Out is defined as the useful energy delivered to the transport vehicle to produce 

motion, and Net Energy Demand is defined as all source energy consumed by the system (e.g. 

fossil, nuclear, renewable) minus energy saved or produced because of system offsets such as 

biomass combustion.

Table 21 reports the results for the base case.

Table 21: Comparison of NEV (MJ/1,000 GTK) for the base case for each of the four transport 

modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight -26 -22 -18 -11 52

Rail Transport–Passenger -42 -36 -30 -18 87

Road Transport–Freight -120 -110 -88 -52 250

Road Transport–Passenger -160 -140 -120 -68 340

Percent Change from Diesel** - 14% 29% 58% 300%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** Percent change from the diesel reference system is constant for all transport modes as it is due to variations in the 

wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement (biodiesel compared to diesel) 

does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent changes reported here may not 

equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to independent rounding.

As shown in Table 21, the B100 results for all four transport modes show positive NEVs, 

reinforcing the beneficial nature of the Jatropha biodiesel system under base case conditions. As 

reported in Table 22, Jatropha biodiesel has a WTP-positive NEV of 0.59 MJ/MJ fuel compared 

to a negative NEV for conventional diesel of -0.27 MJ/MJ fuel. As shown in Table 21, the modes 

that consume more fuel per 1,000 GTK (the road transport modes) will have higher absolute 
46

values for NEV (positive or negative) than the rail modes as the WTP NEVs in Table 22 are 

multiplied by the fuel consumed to achieve 1,000 GTK of transport.

Table 22. Well-to-pump NEV (MJ net energy value*) for the base case scenario

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Net Energy Value -0.27 -0.24 -0.20 -0.11 0.56

Percent Change from Diesel - 14% 29% 58% 300%

* MJ net energy value is reported on a per MJ of fuel energy delivered to vehicle basis.

5.3 Net Energy Ratio

Net energy ratio (NER) is de-emphasized in this report because of the instability of results and 

lack of uniform calculation method leading to incomparability of NER results across studies. 

Nevertheless, its intuitive meaning finds broad appeal, and it is calculated here (with results 

reported in Table 23) to enable comparison with other studies (e.g., Whitaker and Heath 2009). 

The following section describing the NER is adapted from Whitaker and Heath (2009). 

The net energy ratio is used to compare the useful energy produced by the system to the net 

energy consumed by the system. As described in the supporting materials to Farrell et al. (2006), 

NER is a problematic metric. Chiefly, the NER is problematic because it is difficult to compare 

between studies as it is often poorly defined and is strongly influenced by the analyst’s method 

of calculation such as whether energy offsets produced by the system are added to the energy 

output or subtracted from the energy input. 

In this study, NER is calculated as 

Energy Out (MJ) NER

Net Energy Demand (MJ) =

(2)

where, Energy Out is defined as the useful energy delivered to the transport vehicle to produce 

motion, and Net Energy Demand is defined as all energy consumed by the system minus energy 

saved or produced because of system offsets such as biomass combustion.
47

Table 23. Net energy ratio evaluated at the point of refueling a vehicle (excluding vehicle 

operation)*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Net Energy Ratio 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.90 2.3

Percent Change from Diesel** (%) - 3.2% 6.7% 14% 190%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** Percent change from the diesel reference system is constant for all transport modes as it is due to variations in the 

wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement (biodiesel compared to diesel) 

does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009) 

As Table 23 shows, conventional diesel has a NER of only 0.78 while the NER for B100 is 

approximately 2.3. Whitaker and Heath (2009) estimated an NER of 1.9. The difference in NER 

between the two studies results from a decrease in the assumed irrigation requirement for the 

present study compared to the previous and other small modeling changes, further discussed in 

Section 6.

5.4 Net Petroleum Displacement

Biodiesel use is often cited as a means to decrease dependence on petroleum. This issue is of 

particular importance to India as approximately 75% of all crude oil used in India is imported 

(Sarin 2008e). Reduction in petroleum use is defined as the net consumption of petroleum

(including accounting for co-products) by the reference system (here, diesel) minus the net

petroleum consumption in an alternative scenario (here, various biodiesel blends), often termed 

petroleum displacement. By examining petroleum displacement over the full life cycle, this study 

analyzes to what degree the reduction in combustion of diesel fuel in the transport vehicles is 

offset by petroleum consumption during the cultivation of Jatropha and transportation and 

processing of Jatropha oil and biodiesel. Table 24 shows petroleum consumption and 

displacement over the life cycle normalized by the functional unit, 1,000 GTK. The percent 

decrease in petroleum consumption compared with the conventional diesel base case is also 

tabulated.
48

Table 24. Comparison of net life cycle petroleum consumption and displacement intensities (kg 

crude oil/1,000 GTK) for the base case for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 0.30

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

- 0.10 0.21 0.42 2.2

Rail Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

4.1 4.0 3.8 3.4 0.50

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

- 0.17 0.35 0.70 3.6

Road Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

12 12 11 10 1.5

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

- 0.51 1.0 2.0 11

Road Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

16 15 15 13 1.9

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

- 0.67 1.3 2.7 14

Percent Change from Diesel**

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

- -4.2% -8.4% -17% -88%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty. 

** Percent change from the diesel reference system is constant for all transport modes as it is due to variations in the 

wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement (biodiesel compared to diesel) 

does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent changes reported here may not 

equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to independent rounding.

All four transport modes realize significant reductions in petroleum consumption for all blends 

of biodiesel compared with conventional petroleum diesel. B5 yields a reduction of 4.2%, with 

B10, B20, and B100 yielding reductions of 8.4%, 17%, and 88% respectively. Table 25 reports 

the petroleum consumption and petroleum displacement intensity on a WTP basis to remove the 

influence of vehicle operation efficiency on the results. For base case conditions, all of the 

reductions in petroleum consumption occur during the WTP phase of the life cycle, as evidenced 

by the change from diesel results in Table 24 (full life cycle) and Table 25 (WTP only) being 

identical.
49

Table 25. Well-to-pump net petroleum consumption and displacement (g crude oil/MJ fuel 

delivered) for the base case scenario

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Net Petroleum Consumption Intensity 27 26 25 22 3.2

Net Petroleum Displacement Intensity 1.1 2.3 4.5 24

Percent Change from Diesel for Net

Petroleum Displacement Intensity - -4.2% -8.4% -17% -88%

It is evident on the basis of the results in Table 24 and Table 25 that replacing conventional 

diesel with biodiesel blends in India will lead to significant savings in petroleum consumption. 

Sensitivity analyses are used to test how petroleum savings differ with changes to selected model 

input parameters.
50

6 Benchmarking

The base case GHG-emission results of this study are benchmarked against five Jatropha LCA 

studies. These include the authors’ previous report (Whitaker and Heath 2009), the Renewable 

Fuels Agency’s (RFA) analysis (2009),6

Table 26

and Reinhardt et al.’s (2007) study that all examine 

Jatropha biodiesel production in India, along with Ndong et al.’s (2009) study of Jatropha 

production in the Ivory Coast in West Africa and Prueksakorn and Gheewala’s (2006) analysis of 

Jatropha production in Thailand. summarizes the WTP GHG emissions in grams of 

CO2e per MJ of biodiesel (B100) or diesel delivered to the vehicle for the above-mentioned 

studies. Percent reduction in GHG emissions from the conventional petroleum diesel baseline is 

calculated on a WTP basis (plus the carbon content of the fuel) for each study.

Both Whitaker and Heath studies, along with Reinhardt et al. and Ndong et al., estimate the 

impacts of the conventional well-to-wheel diesel baseline at 84-87 grams CO2e/MJ, which is in 

line with estimates for conventional and reformulated low sulfur diesel from Argonne National 

Laboratory’s GREET model (Argonne National Laboratory 2009). Prueksakorn and Gheewala 

use a significantly higher conventional well-to-wheel diesel baseline of 246 grams CO2e/MJ 

based on the results of Sheehan et al.’s (1998) study of soybean biodiesel and conventional diesel 

production. Prueksakorn and Gheewala also use Sheehan et al.’s estimates of oil extraction and 

biodiesel processing energy consumption for soybean oil to apply to Jatropha biodiesel 

production.

Table 26. Benchmarking the net life cycle GHG-emission results of the present study against 

results from other published studies

Source Feedstock–Country

Biodiesel 

(B100) GHG 

Emissions

(g CO2e/MJ)

% Reduction in Wellto-Wheel GHG 

Emissions for B100 

Compared with Diesel 

This Study–Base Case Analysis Jatropha–India 24 72%

Whitaker and Heath (2009) Jatropha–India 33 62%

Renewable Fuels Agency (2009) Jatropha–India 25 71%

Reinhardt et al. (2007) Jatropha–India 75 11%

Ndong et al. (2009) Jatropha–West Africa 24 72%

Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2006) Jatropha–Thailand 57 77%

Ndong et al.’s study uses methodology and boundaries similar to this study including (1) 

considering that all CO2 emitted during biodiesel combustion is offset by carbon uptake during 

the growth phase of the Jatropha, (2) using a combination of country specific field data and 

literature searching to fill data gaps, and (3) utilizing the ecoinvent 2.0 database to provide key 

process modules. WTP GHG-emission results for this study agree closely with results from 

Ndong et al. The Ndong et al. study uses a similar base case yield of 4 tonnes of dry seed per 

hectare per year compared with 3.75 tonnes of dry seed per hectare per year for this study. 

 6 The Renewable Fuels Agency’s report establishes GHG emission factors for conventional diesel and renewable 

fuels for reporting under the United Kingdom’s renewable transport fuel obligation and includes country-specific 

emission factors for multiple fuel types including Jatropha.
51

The Reinhardt et al. study assumed cultivation on poor soils and a yield of only 1.4 tonnes of dry 

seed per hectare per year. As explored in Section 7, the net GHG-emission benefit for utilizing 

Jatropha biodiesel is heavily dependent on the yield achieved per hectare. Therefore, that 

Reinhardt et al.’s lower yield estimate leads to less of a net GHG-emission benefit for its analysis 

is unsurprising.

The RFA report provides default GHG-emission values for a wide variety of biofuels that qualify 

under the United Kingdom’s renewable transport fuel obligation. The value listed in Table 26 is 

the default value for Jatropha biodiesel produced in India, and it agrees closely with the GHGemission results of this study. The RFA study references Reinhardt et al. for cultivation data and 

uses 2.27 tonnes of seed yield per hectare-year as its default value. On the other hand, it assumes 

a lower rate of fertilizer input than those suggested by Reinhardt et al. for the optimized scenario 

(and lower than those used in this study), and it omits diesel fuel consumption for plantation 

management. Impacts associated with the transport of goods during the production of biodiesel 

are calculated based on aggregate fuel consumption and modal share of vehicle travel in India.

The diesel GHG-emission estimates in this study and Whitaker and Heath (2009) are the same. 

The difference in biodiesel GHG emissions is primarily due to a reduction in the assumed 

irrigation water required. The previous report estimated required irrigation input as the difference 

between the rainfall at the site and the rainfall for a site known to require no irrigation. Since the 

LCA model supporting the previous report was frozen, a publication reporting results from 

Jatropha water requirement experiments was found (Kheira and Atta 2008). The current 

publication should provide a much more accurate estimate of irrigation demand. It is now 

believed that the irrigation water requirement estimated in the previous Whitaker and Heath 

report (2009) was likely overestimated by a factor of more than 100. While the base case 

scenario only assumed irrigation for three years, this difference in estimated water requirement 

was still significant enough to account for over 90% of the difference between the biodiesel 

GHG-emission estimates for this study and for Whitaker and Heath (2009). The remainder of the 

difference can be accounted for by minor changes in the modeling: removing a potential double 

counting of transportation and all transportation infrastructure (to better match the defined scope 

of the study, which utilizes India’s existing transportation infrastructure). 
52

7 Sensitivity Analyses

The sensitivity analyses for this study take two primary approaches. Scenario sensitivity analyses 

evaluate coherent sets of parameters that define plausible alternative scenarios for Jatropha 

biodiesel production, distribution, and use in India. Parametric sensitivity analyses vary the 

values of individual parameters to determine which inputs have the greatest impacts on GHG 

emissions, NEV, and petroleum displacement. 

7.1 Scenario Sensitivity Analysis

This section analyzes plausible alternative scenarios for the production of Jatropha biodiesel in 

India, including alternative co-product offset scenarios, cultivation inputs, and assumed yields. If 

a specific biodiesel blend is not identified in the subsections that follow, the discussion refers to 

the results for B100. In comparing sensitivity scenario results to the base case scenario, negative 

percent changes are considered environmentally beneficial for GHG emissions and petroleum 

consumption (indicating a reduction in impacts) while positive percent changes are beneficial for 

NEV (indicating a greater difference between useful energy out of the system and cumulative 

energy demanded by the system).

7.1.1 Sensitivity Scenario A: Marginal Land, Low Irrigation

Much of the uncertainty related to modeling the life cycle production of Jatropha biodiesel 

resides in the estimation of expected yield of seeds and Jatropha oil from given cultivation 

inputs. However, certain directional relationships between key cultivation parameters are well 

known even if an exact quantitative relationship is not well established. For instance, marginal 

land conditions coupled with no irrigation or less intensive cultivation practices lead to lower 

seed yields and oil content. Sensitivity scenario A models a 40% reduction in seed yield 

compared with the more optimized Jatropha cultivation conditions of the base case scenario. The 

reduction in seed yield is based on Reinhardt et al.’s (2008) estimate for India’s current Jatropha 

cultivation conditions. Also well known is that omitting irrigation may result in a water deficit 

for the trees during the growing season. According to Kheira and Atta (2008), sensitivity 

scenario A models the oil content of Jatropha seeds under water stress as 25% (compared to the 

base case estimate of 35%). Estimates for parameters in sensitivity scenario A whose values have 

changed compared to the base case scenario are detailed in Table 27. Table 28, Table 29, and 

Table 30 report the GHG emission, NEV, and petroleum consumption and displacement intensity 

results, respectively.

Table 27. Sensitivity scenario A—marginal land, low irrigation-input parameters

Parameter Description Input Parameter Units Base Case 

Value

Sensitivity 

Scenario A

Years of irrigation required irr_years Years 3 0

Jatropha seed oil content oil_content Mass fraction 0.35 0.25

Seed yield reduction seed_yield_red Fraction reduction 

in seed yield

0 0.40
53

Table 28. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/1,000 GTK) for sensitivity 

scenario A for each of the four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.4 5.5

Rail Transport–Passenger 13 13 13 12 9.1

Road Transport–Freight 39 38 37 36 27

Road Transport–Passenger 51 50 49 48 35

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles**

(g CO2e / MJ fuel delivered)

85 84 83 80 59

Percent Change from Diesel*** - -1.4% -2.9% -5.9% -31%

Percent Change from Base Case Result*** 0.0% 2.0% 4.2% 9.1% 140%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from the base case result is constant for all transport modes 

as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement 

(biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent 

changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to 

independent rounding.

As Table 28 shows, Jatropha biodiesel maintains a net GHG-emission advantage over 

conventional diesel even if seed yields are reduced by 40% and oil content of the seeds is 

reduced from 35% to 25%. However, the net GHG-emission advantage is reduced from 

approximately 72% in the base case to only 31% under these cultivation conditions. 

Similarly, the base case estimate of NEV is negatively impacted by the reduced seed yield and 

oil content, even after accounting for eliminating irrigation requirements. The NEV of B100 is 

reduced by 99% compared with the base case (Table 29).

Table 29. Comparison of NEV (MJ/1,000 GTK) for sensitivity scenario A for each of the four 

transport modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight -26 -24 -23 -21 0.39

Rail Transport–Passenger -42 -40 -38 -34 0.65

Road Transport–Freight -120 -120 -110 -100 1.9

Road Transport–Passenger -160 -160 -150 -130 2.5

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles**

(MJ net energy benefit / MJ fuel delivered) -0.27 -0.26 -0.25 -0.22 0.0042

Percent Change from Diesel*** - 4.7% 10% 19% 100%

Percent Change from Base Case Result*** 0.0% -11% -27% -94% -99%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from the base case result is constant for all transport modes 

as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement 

(biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent 

changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to 

independent rounding.
54

Finally, as expected, petroleum consumption intensity increases as seed yield and oil content 

decrease (Table 30). For this scenario, petroleum consumption intensity nearly doubles in 

comparison to the base case, although a reduction in petroleum consumption of approximately 

66% is still achieved compared with conventional diesel.

Table 30. Comparison of net petroleum consumption and displacement intensity for sensitivity 

scenario A for each of the four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Units Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 0.84

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.078 0.16 0.32 1.6

Rail Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.6 1.4

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.13 0.26 0.53 2.7

Road Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 12 12 11 11 4.1

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.38 0.76 1.5 8.0

Road Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 16 15 15 14 5.4

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.50 1.0 2.0 11

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles**

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

g crude oil/

MJ fuel delivered 27 26 25 23 9.1

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

g crude oil/

MJ fuel delivered 0.84 1.7 3.4 18

Percent Change from Diesel*** % - -3.2% -6.3% -13% -66%

Percent Change from Base Case Value 

for Petroleum Consumption Intensity*** % 0.0% 1.1% 2.3% 5.1% 180%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from the base case value for petroleum consumption 

intensity is constant for all transport modes as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, 

assuming that the fuel economy decrement (biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 

2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the 

results reported above owing to independent rounding.
55

7.1.2 Sensitivity Scenario B: Marginal Land, High Cultivation Maintenance

This sensitivity scenario tests the impact of increasing cultivation inputs to achieve base case 

seed yields and oil content on marginal land. The scenario is designed to test whether there is a 

positive tradeoff when additional fertilizer and irrigation are used to overcome the yield 

reductions associated with use of marginal land. Table 31 details the parameters used in the 

sensitivity analysis. Table 32, Table 33, and Table 34 report the GHG emission, NEV, and 

petroleum consumption results, respectively. 

Table 31. Sensitivity scenario B: marginal land, high cultivation maintenance–parameter inputs

Parameter Description Input Parameter Units Base Case 

Value

Sensitivity 

Scenario B

Fraction irrigation needs met Frac_met_irr Mass fraction 0.20 0.40

Diesel fuel consumed for 

cultivation diesel_fuel_cul liters/ha 86 128

N fertilizer required N_fert_req kg N/ ha-yr 81 124

P2O5 fertilizer required P2O5_fert_req kg P2O5/ha-yr 31 49

K2O fertilizer required K2O_fert_req kg K2O/ha-yr 89 128

The increased diesel fuel and fertilizer estimates are based on scaling the optimized scenario 

inputs of Reinhardt et al. (2008) to achieve the base case yield value of 3,750 kg dry seed per 

hectare (Planning Commission 2003). While Achten et al. (2008) suggest that oil content of 

approximately 35% is achievable even on marginal land, Kheira and Atta (2008) warn that water 

deficits (often associated with marginal lands) can significantly decrease final oil content. 

Therefore, the irrigation assumptions of this scenario are increased to twice those of the base 

case to model a higher cultivation input scenario designed to achieve base case yields and oil 

content from marginal land.

As Table 33 shows, increasing fertilizer and irrigation to achieve base case yields and oil content 

from marginal land would result in life cycle GHG emissions decreasing by 59% compared to 

conventional diesel, as opposed to decreasing by 72% as in the base case. As shown later in the 

parametric sensitivity analysis (Section 7.2), irrigation has a smaller impact on net life cycle 

GHG emissions compared with other input parameters. Even if irrigation is required for 20 years 

at the higher level of 40% of water needs met by irrigation (tested in separate modeling as a 

contrast with the base case assumption of 3 years of irrigation required for plantation 

establishment) GHG-emission reductions compared with conventional diesel still exceed 58%.
56

Table 32. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/1,000 GTK) for sensitivity 

scenario B for each of the four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.0 3.2

Rail Transport–Passenger 13 13 12 12 5.4

Road Transport–Freight 39 37 36 34 16

Road Transport–Passenger 51 50 48 45 21

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles**

(g CO2e / MJ fuel delivered) 85 83 81 76 35

Percent Change from Diesel*** - -2.8% -5.6% -11% -59%

Percent Change from Base Case Result*** 0.0% 0.61% 1.3% 2.8% 43%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from the base case result is constant for all transport modes 

as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement 

(biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent 

changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to 

independent rounding.

Table 33. Comparison of NEV intensity (MJ/1,000 GTK) for sensitivity scenario B for each of the 

four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight -26 -23 -20 -14 35

Rail Transport–Passenger -42 -38 -33 -23 58

Road Transport–Freight -120 -110 -96 -68 170

Road Transport–Passenger -160 -150 -130 -90 220

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles**

(MJ net energy benefit / MJ fuel delivered) -0.27 -0.24 -0.21 -0.15 0.37

Percent Change from Diesel*** - 11% 22% 45% 240%

Percent Change from Base Case Result*** 0.0% -3.8% -9.2% -31% -33%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from the base case result is constant for all transport modes 

as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement 

(biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent 

changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to 

independent rounding.

Table 33 reveals that on a WTP basis, Jatropha biodiesel still maintains a positive NEV if 

fertilizer and irrigation requirements are increased as shown in Table 31. Finally, as Table 34

reports, petroleum consumption increases by more than 60% under this scenario, however, 

Jatropha biodiesel production still results in a reduction in petroleum consumption of 

approximately 80% compared with conventional diesel.
57

Table 34. Comparison of net petroleum consumption and displacement intensity for sensitivity 

scenario B for each of the four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Units Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 0.49

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.095 0.19 0.38 2.0

Rail Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.5 0.81

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.16 0.32 0.64 3.3

Road Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 12 12 11 10 2.4

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.46 0.93 1.9 9.7

Road Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 16 15 15 14 3.1

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.61 1.2 2.5 13

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles**

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

g crude oil/

MJ fuel delivered 27 26 25 23 5.2

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

g crude oil/

MJ fuel delivered 1.0 2.1 4.1 22

Percent Change from 

Diesel for Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity***

% - -3.8% -7.7% -15% -80%

Percent Change from 

Base Case Value for 

Petroleum Consumption 

Intensity***

% 0.0% 0.37% 0.79% 1.7% 62%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change in petroleum consumption intensity from the diesel reference system and from the base case 

value is constant for all transport modes as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, 

assuming that the fuel economy decrement (biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 

2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the 

results reported above owing to independent rounding. 
58

7.1.3 Sensitivity Scenario C: Good Land, High Cultivation Maintenance

This sensitivity scenario explores a scenario where Jatropha is grown on high quality land with 

high inputs of fertilizer and irrigation that lead to high seed yield and oil content. Fertilizer and 

diesel fuel input requirements are based on Reinhardt et al.’s (2008) “best” scenario that 

accounts for the increased nutrient and maintenance needs associated with higher seed yields. 

The assumption of good soil and irrigation for all life cycle years instead of just the first three 

results in assumed increases in oil content (40% vs. 35% of the base case) and a doubling of seed 

yield compared to the base case from 3,750 kg/ha to 7,500 kg/ha. Table 35 outlines the 

parameters adjusted in this scenario.

Table 35. Sensitivity scenario C: good land, high cultivation maintenance-parameter inputs

Parameter 

Description

Input 

Parameter Units Base Case Value

Sensitivity 

Scenario C

Years of irrigation 

required

irr_years Years 3 20

Diesel fuel consumed 

for cultivation

diesel_fuel_cul liters/ha 86 141

N fertilizer required N_fert_req kg N/ ha-yr 81 141

P2O5 fertilizer required P2O5_fert_req kg P2O5/ha-yr 31 56

K2O fertilizer required K2O_fert_req kg K2O/ha-yr 89 139

Seed yield reduction seed_yield_red Fraction reduction in 

seed yield

0 -1*

Jatropha seed oil 

content

oil_content Mass fraction 0.35 0.40

* A negative seed yield reduction equates to a fractional increase in seed yield, in this case a doubling of seed yield 

(or 100% increase).

The results displayed in Table 36 reveal that Jatropha biodiesel produced under this scenario 

reduces GHG emissions by approximately 36% compared with the base case value for an overall 

GHG-emission reduction compared to diesel of 82%. Doubling of the seed yield more than 

offsets the additional GHG-emission impacts from additional fertilizer and irrigation inputs.
59

Table 36. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/1,000 GTK) for sensitivity 

scenario C for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight 7.9 7.6 7.3 6.7 1.4

Rail Transport–Passenger 13 13 12 11 2.4

Road Transport–Freight 39 37 36 32 7.0

Road Transport–Passenger 51 49 47 43 9.3

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles** 

(g CO2e / MJ fuel delivered) 85 82 79 72 16

Percent Change from Diesel*** - -3.9% -7.8% -16% -82%

Percent Change from Base Case Result*** 0.0% -0.51% -1.1% -2.3% -36%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from the base case result is constant for all transport modes 

as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement 

(biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent 

changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to 

independent rounding.

Table 37 shows that, similar to the results for GHG emissions, the increased seed yield results in 

a NEV that is 24% greater than the base case value.

Table 37. Comparison of net NEV (MJ/1,000 GTK) for sensitivity scenario C for each of four 

transport modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight -26 -21 -17 -8.2 64

Rail Transport–Passenger -42 -35 -28 -14 110

Road Transport–Freight -120 -100 -82 -40 310

Road Transport–Passenger -160 -140 -110 -53 420

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles**

(MJ net energy benefit / MJ fuel delivered) -0.27 -0.23 -0.18 -0.089 0.69

Percent Change from Diesel*** - 17% 34% 68% 350%

Percent Change from Base Case Result*** 0.0% 2.7% 6.6% 22% 24%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from the base case result is constant for all transport modes 

as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement 

(biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent 

changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to 

independent rounding.
60

Finally, Table 38 reports that Jatropha biodiesel produced under these high cultivation input/high 

seed yield conditions reduces petroleum consumption by 42% compared with the base case, 

leading to an overall petroleum consumption reduction of 93% compared with petroleum diesel. 

Table 38. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity for sensitivity scenario C for each 

of four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Units Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

2.5 2.4 2.3 2.0 0.17

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

- 0.11 0.22 0.44 2.3

Rail Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

4.1 4.0 3.8 3.4 0.29

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

- 0.18 0.37 0.74 3.8

Road Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

12 12 11 10 0.84

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

- 0.54 1.1 2.2 11

Road Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

16 15 15 13 1.1

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

- 0.71 1.4 2.9 15

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles**

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

g crude oil/

MJ fuel delivered

27 26 24 22 1.9

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

g crude oil/

MJ fuel delivered

1.2 2.4 4.8 25

Percent Change from Diesel for 

Petroleum Consumption 

Intensity***

% - -4.4% -8.9% -18% -93%

Percent Change from Base Case 

Value for Petroleum Consumption 

Intensity***

% 0.0% -0.25% -0.53% -1.2% -42%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change in petroleum consumption intensity from the diesel reference system and from the base case 

value is constant for all transport modes as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, 

assuming that the fuel economy decrement (biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 

2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the 

results reported above owing to independent rounding.
61

7.1.4 Sensitivity Scenario D: Increased Seed Catchment and Biodiesel 

Distribution Distances

This sensitivity scenario tests the impacts of adjusting Jatropha feedstock and processed 

biodiesel transportation distances to represent a more centralized biodiesel processing and 

distribution infrastructure. The scenario assumes that the truck transport distance for Jatropha 

seeds is increased from 50 km for a local feedstock catchment zone in the base case to 100 km, 

representing a more centralized oil extraction facility7

Table 39

. Similarly, the transport distance for the 

Jatropha biodiesel is increased from 25 km for distribution to local markets to 500 km, 

representing distribution to larger and more distant urban centers. outlines the 

parameters adjusted to create this scenario.

Table 39. Sensitivity scenario D—centralized biodiesel production—input parameters

Parameter Description Input Parameter Base Case

Value

Sensitivity

Scenario B

Seed transport distance (Km) seed_tran_dist 50 100

Biodiesel transport distance (Km) biodiesel_dist 25 500

As shown in Table 40, increasing the transport distances for both Jatropha seeds and biodiesel to 

represent a more centralized production scenario only slightly increases life cycle GHG 

emissions (+2%). The Jatropha biodiesel maintains a more than 70% decrease in GHG emissions 

when compared to petroleum diesel despite seed transport distance doubling and biodiesel 

transport distance increasing by a factor of 20 indicating that Jatropha feedstock and biodiesel 

transport distances have relatively small influences on the total GHG emissions of the Jatropha 

biodiesel life cycle. 

 7 For reference, Reinhardt et al. (2008) examine a maximum transport distance of approximately 40 km for seed 

transport to the oil extraction and biodiesel production facility in India. 
62

Table 40. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/1,000 GTK) for sensitivity 

scenario D for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight 7.9 7.6 7.4 6.8 2.3

Rail Transport–Passenger 13 13 12 11 3.8

Road Transport–Freight 39 37 36 33 11

Road Transport–Passenger 51 49 47 44 15

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles**

(g CO2e / MJ fuel) 85 82 80 74 25

Percent Change from Diesel*** - -3.4% -6.8% -14% -71%

Percent Change from Base Case Result*** 0.0% 0.029% 0.061% 0.13% 2.1%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from the base case result is constant for all transport modes 

as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement 

(biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent 

changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to 

independent rounding.

Similarly, Table 41 reveals that changes to NEV are also minimal as diesel fuel consumed in the 

Jatropha life cycle transport modules represents a relatively small percentage of total life cycle 

energy consumption. The centralized biodiesel scenario only decreases the NEV for B100 by 

1.2%. 

Table 41. Comparison of NEV (MJ/1,000 GTK) for sensitivity scenario D for each of four transport 

modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight -26 -22 -18 -11 51

Rail Transport–Passenger -42 -36 -30 -18 86

Road Transport–Freight -120 -110 -88 -52 250

Road Transport–Passenger -160 -140 -120 -69 330

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles**

(MJ net energy benefit / MJ fuel delivered) -0.27 -0.24 -0.20 -0.12 0.55

Percent Change from Diesel*** - 14% 29% 58% 300%

Percent Change from Base Case Result*** 0.0% -0.14% -0.33% -1.1% -1.2%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from the base case result is constant for all transport modes 

as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement 

(biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent 

changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to 

independent rounding.
63

Finally, Table 42 reveals that even net petroleum consumption intensity and net petroleum 

displacement intensity—which are directly impacted by diesel fuel consumption in Jatropha 

feedstock and biodiesel truck transportation—are increased by only 2.6% compared to the base 

case under the increased transportation distances tested in this scenario, and Jatropha biodiesel 

still maintains an approximately 88% net petroleum consumption intensity reduction compared 

with conventional diesel. 

Table 42. Comparison of net petroleum consumption and displacement intensity for sensitivity 

scenario D for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Units Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 0.31

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.10 0.21 0.42 2.2

Rail Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.4 0.51

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.17 0.35 0.70 3.6

Road Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 12 12 11 10 1.5

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.51 1.0 2.0 11

Road Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 16 15 15 13 2.0

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.67 1.3 2.7 14

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles**

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

g crude oil/

MJ fuel delivered 27 26 25 22 3.3

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

g crude oil/

MJ fuel delivered 1.1 2.2 4.5 23

Percent Change from Diesel 

for Petroleum Consumption 

Intensity***

% - -4.2% -8.4% -17% -88%

Percent Change from Base 

Case Value for Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity***

% 0.0% 0.016% 0.033% 0.072% 2.6%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change in petroleum consumption intensity from the diesel reference system and from the base case 

value is constant for all transport modes as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, 

assuming that the fuel economy decrement (biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 

2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the 

results reported above owing to independent rounding.
64

7.1.5 Sensitivity Scenario E: Biomass Offset–Heat

This sensitivity scenario tests another aspect of scenario uncertainty. It is unclear whether the 

biomass collected during Jatropha cultivation and harvesting will be combusted for conversion to 

electricity or simply burned for process heat. The heat-offset scenario employs the ecoinvent 2.0 

module for burning mixed wood chips from the forest in a 50-kW furnace with an efficiency of 

80% as the offset module (Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories 2008) instead of the 25% 

biomass to electricity conversion efficiency assumed in the base case analyses (U.S. Climate 

Change Technology Program 2005). The total amount of biomass assumed available for 

conversion does not change from the base case analysis. The ecoinvent 2.0 module chosen as a 

proxy to represent the production of process heat is based on European conditions and is unlikely 

to match the actual production of process heat in India. Therefore, the results of this sensitivity 

analysis may not represent the actual impacts of the tradeoff of using collected biomass to 

generate either heat or electricity. However, the conversion efficiency of biomass to process heat

is expected to be greater than the conversion efficiency of biomass to electricity for the actual 

process used on the ground in India, suggesting these results are accurate. Table 44 and Table 45

report the GHG emission, NEV, and petroleum consumption intensity impacts of offsetting 

process heat instead of Indian electricity.

Table 43. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/1,000 GTK) for the 

biomass offset heat sensitivity scenario for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight 7.9 7.6 7.3 6.7 1.4

Rail Transport–Passenger 13 13 12 11 2.3

Road Transport–Freight 39 37 36 32 6.9

Road Transport–Passenger 51 49 47 43 9.1

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles** 

(g CO2e / MJ fuel delivered) 85 82 79 72 15

Percent Change from Diesel*** - -3.9% -7.8% -16% -82%

Percent Change from Base Case Result*** 0.0% -0.53% -1.1% -2.4% -37%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from the base case result is constant for all transport modes 

as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement 

(biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent 

changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to 

independent rounding.

Results of this sensitivity scenario analysis reveal that Jatropha biodiesel production receives a 

larger net GHG-emission credit from offsetting process heat than Indian electricity. Life cycle 

GHG emissions are decreased by approximately 37% yielding an 82% net GHG-emission 

advantage over the conventional diesel processing scenario, as displayed in Table 44. This result 

highlights the greater life cycle NEV for Jatropha biodiesel utilizing biomass rather than 

electricity to offset heat. The improvement is likely due to the increased process efficiency of 

generating process heat instead of electricity. The NEV for Jatropha biodiesel in this scenario 

increases by 18% from the base case value.
65

Table 44. Comparison of NEV (MJ/1,000 GTK) for the biomass offset heat sensitivity scenario for 

each of four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight -26 -21 -17 -8.8 62

Rail Transport–Passenger -42 -36 -29 -15 100

Road Transport–Freight -120 -100 -84 -43 300

Road Transport–Passenger -160 -140 -110 -56 400

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles**

(MJ net energy benefit / MJ fuel delivered) -0.27 -0.23 -0.19 -0.095 0.66

Percent Change from Diesel*** - 16% 33% 66% 340%

Percent Change from Base Case Result*** 0.0% 2.1% 5.1% 17% 18%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from the base case result is constant for all transport modes 

as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement 

(biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent 

changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to 

independent rounding.

Finally, net petroleum consumption decreases by approximately 46% as compared to the base 

case, as shown in Table 45. While the mix of energy sources for Indian electricity minimally 

uses petroleum products, the process heat furnace that is offset in this scenario is modeled as one 

that relies on petroleum products for its operation. Therefore, offsetting process heat production 

yields a greater net petroleum consumption benefit than does offset Indian grid electricity. The 

actual energy sources for process heat in India are unknown, so the accuracy of the results for 

this metric is uncertain. 
66

Table 45. Comparison of net petroleum consumption and displacement intensity for the biomass 

offset heat sensitivity scenario for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Units Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.0 0.16

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.11 0.22 0.45 2.3

Rail Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.4 0.27

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.18 0.37 0.74 3.9

Road Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 12 12 11 10 0.79

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.54 1.1 2.2 11

Road Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK 16 15 15 13 1.0

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK - 0.71 1.4 2.9 15

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles**

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

g crude oil/

MJ fuel 

delivered

27 26 24 22 1.7

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

g crude oil/

MJ fuel 

delivered

1.2 2.4 4.8 25

Percent Change from 

Diesel for Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity***

% - -4.5% -8.9% -18% -93%

Percent Change from Base 

Case Value for Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity***

% 0.0% -0.28% -0.58% -1.3% -46%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change in petroleum consumption intensity from the diesel reference system and from the base case 

values is constant for all transport modes as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, 

assuming that the fuel economy decrement (biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 

2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the 

results reported above owing to independent rounding.
67

7.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analyses

7.2.1 Local Sensitivity Coefficient

Ten parameters were selected for calculating their local sensitivity coefficients to determine the 

impact of changes in the magnitude of the single input parameter on the overall results of the 

model. Refer to Whitaker and Heath (2009) for a detailed description of how local sensitivity 

coefficients are calculated. The normalized local sensitivity coefficient can be interpreted as the 

fractional change in model output resulting from a 100% change in model input. Local 

sensitivity coefficients greater than one in absolute value indicate input parameters with outsized 

influence on the model result; local sensitivity coefficients less than one indicate parameters that 

have proportionally less influence on model outcomes. Negative local sensitivity coefficients 

indicate that the model output and input are anti-correlated; i.e., the value of the model output 

decreases as the value of the model input increases. Positive local sensitivity coefficients can be 

interpreted in the opposite manner. As LCAs are typically linear models, the local sensitivity 

coefficient is expected to remain consistent throughout the likely range of input parameter 

values.

Analyses in Whitaker and Heath (2009) were used to help determine the parameters selected for 

this analysis based on their relative influence on model results. The selected parameters were:

1. Dry seed yield—seeds harvested per hectare per year

2. Biodiesel efficiency—relative fuel consumption efficiency of using biodiesel vs. diesel8

3. Seed oil content—mass of Jatropha oil per mass of Jatropha seed

4. Tree density—number of Jatropha trees per hectare (impacts yield per hectare)

5. Seed cake offset—amount of fertilizer Jatropha seedcake receives credit for offsetting

6. Fertilizer use—amount of fertilizer used to manage the plantation

7. Glycerine offset—yield of refined glycerine after biodiesel transesterification

8. Plantation electricity—operational electricity consumption for plantation management

9. N2O volatilization—kg N2O released/kg N fertilizer applied

10. Irrigation required—liters of water per year required to irrigate the plantation.

Table 46 displays the local sensitivity coefficients for the life cycle GHG emissions resulting 

from all modes of transport. As expected, the coefficients are the same across modes as local 

sensitivity coefficients measure proportional changes in output results compared with input 

parameters, not absolute changes in values.

 8 Further discussion of this topic is available in Section 3. See the first base case assumption: Fuel economy does not 

decrease with increasing biodiesel blends.
68

Table 46. Local sensitivity coefficient of selected input parameters for net life cycle GHG 

emissions*

Rank*** Parameter 

Tested Sensitivity Scenario Description

Normalized Local Sensitivity Coefficient (Sij) for

B100 Greenhouse Gas Emissions**

RoadFreight 

Transport

RoadPassenger 

Transport

RailFreight 

Transport 

RailPassenger 

Transport 

1 Dry Seed 

Yield

Varies the seed yield per tree -3.7 -3.7 -3.7 -3.7

2 Biodiesel 

Efficiency

Varies the efficiency of B100 vs. 

diesel

-1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1

3 Seed Oil 

Content

Varies the oil content of the seeds -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0

4 Tree Density Varies the density of planted trees 

per hectare

-0.83 -0.83 -0.83 -0.83

5 Seed Cake 

Offset

Varies the amount of credit for the 

seed cake offsets

-0.69 -0.69 -0.69 -0.69

6 Fertilizer Use Varies the amount of fertilizer used 

on the plantation

0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59

7 Glycerine 

Offset

Varies the assumed credit for 

glycerine offset

-0.42 -0.42 -0.42 -0.42

8 Plantation 

Electricity

Varies the amount electricity used

to manage the plantation

0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27

9 N2O 

Volatilization

Varies the N2O volatilization rate 

for applied nitrogen fertilizer

0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22

10 Irrigation 

Required

Varies the amount of irrigation 

water required

0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030

* Model results, Sij values, and sensitivity run differences are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of 

their uncertainty.

** Normalized Sij represents the percent change in model output per 100% percent change in an input parameter. 

Greater absolute Sij values indicated greater model sensitivity to change in the specified input parameter.

*** This column ranks the absolute value of B100 Sij value from greatest to least.

The results displayed in Table 46 identify dry seed yield as having the greatest absolute value of 

Sij and thus having the greatest influence of any single input parameter (when considered one at 

a time) on model results. Seed oil content and tree density also rank in the top four. The high 

ranks of these three parameters suggest that increasing the amount of oil obtained from a 

managed hectare is critical to achieving net GHG-emission benefits as a greater return is 

received from the same fertilizer, energy, and water inputs. These results assume that plantation 

operational energy consumption, fertilizer requirements, and water do not increase as the tree 

density or seed yield increases. Further research is needed to validate these assumptions and to 

better define the Jatropha plantation processes.

The base case analysis for this study (without consideration of the potential impacts of land-use 

change or soil carbon sequestration) estimates a net life cycle GHG-emission reduction of 72% 

from switching from conventional diesel to Jatropha biodiesel at a seed yield of 3,750 kg dry 

seed yield per hectare per year (1.5 kg dry seed yield per tree). After identification of seed yield 

as the critical sensitivity parameter, the analysis was re-run with all of the same inputs except 

that assumed seed yield per tree was varied to determine the break-even point at which a GHG-
69

emission reduction would no longer be realized. Assuming the same cultivation inputs, 

maintenance, transport, and processing practices, the model predicts that no GHG-emission 

reduction will be realized if seed yield falls below 1,250 kg dry seed/ha-yr (0.50 kg dry seed 

yield/tree-year). For context, the Planning Commission of India (2003) suggests that rain-fed, 

poor soils may have yields as low as 1,500 kg dry seed yield per hectare per year. Jongschaap et 

al. (2007) state that currently observed seed yields for Jatropha range from 600 kg dry seed to 

4,100 kg dry seed per hectare per year. The Jongschaap et al. study also cites a realistic seed 

yield of less than 1,000 kg dry seed yield/ha-yr under limited water conditions of 500-600 mm of 

rain per year with no irrigation and a seed yield of 1,450 kg dry seed/ha (with a plant density of 

1,667 plants/ha) for an experiment conducted on marginal lands in India. While well-correlated 

data sets for Jatropha seed yield do not exist, current observations of Jatropha cultivation in the 

literature suggest that seed yields below 1,250 kg dry seed/ha are possible if land conditions are 

poor or if water availability is limited. Therefore, it appears unlikely that reductions in GHG 

emissions from the production and use of Jatropha biodiesel are guaranteed in India, and local 

conditions must be considered in determining the sustainability of individual projects.

Interestingly, Table 46 shows that N2O volatilization rate and irrigation requirements, which are 

subject to significant expert uncertainty, are among the least influential, single parameters tested 

in the sensitivity analyses on GWP. Results suggest that the GHG emissions resulting from 

additional cultivation inputs of irrigation water and fertilizer may be more than offset by the 

GHG-emission reduction benefits associated with achieving higher seed yields. 

The same set of sensitivity cases as tested for GHG emissions were evaluated for their affect on 

NEV. As for GHG emissions, seed yield and biodiesel efficiency are highlighted as critically 

important input parameters for determining life cycle net energy values (Table 47). With the 

focus on energy instead of GHG emissions, fertilizer use and glycerine offset rise in importance 

relative to the other parameters as they directly affect the amount of synthetic chemicals that 

need to be produced. As expected, N2O volatilization rate does not affect the NEV of the system.
70

Table 47. Local sensitivity coefficient of selected input parameters for net energy value (NEV)*

Rank*** Parameter 

Tested

Sensitivity 

Scenario 

Description

Normalized Local Sensitivity Coefficient (Sij)

for B100 Net Energy Value**

RoadFreight 

Transport

RoadPassenger 

Transport

RailFreight 

Transport 

RailPassenger 

Transport 

1 Dry Seed 

Yield

Varies the seed 

yield per tree

2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6

2 Biodiesel 

Efficiency

Varies the 

efficiency of B100 

vs. diesel

0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85

3 Seed Oil 

Content

Varies the oil 

content of the 

seeds

0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63

4 Seed Cake 

Offset

Varies the amount 

of credit for the

seed cake offsets

0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51

5 Fertilizer Use Varies the amount 

of fertilizer used 

on the plantation

-0.44 -0.44 -0.44 -0.44

6 Glycerine 

Offset

Varies the 

assumed credit 

for glycerine offset

0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29

7 Tree Density Varies the density 

of planted trees 

per hectare

0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27

8 Plantation 

Electricity

Varies the amount 

electricity use to 

manage the 

plantation

-0.14 -0.14 -0.14 -0.14

9 Irrigation 

Required

Varies the amount 

of irrigation water 

required

-0.0022 -0.0022 -0.0022 -0.0022

10 N2O 

Volatilization

Varies the N2O 

volatilization rate 

for applied 

nitrogen fertilizer

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

* Model results, Sij values, and sensitivity run differences are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of 

their uncertainty.

** Normalized Sij represents the percent change in model output per 100% percent change in an input parameter. 

Greater absolute Sij values indicated greater model sensitivity to change in the specified input parameter.

*** This column ranks the absolute value of B100 Sij value from greatest to least.

Table 48 reports the local sensitivity coefficients for petroleum consumption intensity and again 

highlights dry seed yield as the critical input parameter because it impacts numerous calculations 

within the model. Increased seed oil content also significantly reduces petroleum consumption 

intensity by improving the overall efficiency of the biodiesel production system. Biodiesel 

efficiency also clearly has a direct impact on petroleum consumption intensity as it influences the 

amount of biodiesel required to be supplied. Plantation electricity has minimal influence as the 

Indian electricity grid uses very little petroleum.
71

Table 48. Local sensitivity coefficient of selected input parameters for net petroleum consumption 

intensity*

Rank*** Parameter 

Tested

Sensitivity 

Scenario 

Description

Normalized Local Sensitivity Coefficient (Sij)

for B100 Petroleum Consumption Intensity**

RoadFreight 

Transport

RoadPassenger 

Transport

RailFreight 

Transport 

RailPassenger 

Transport 

1 Dry Seed 

Yield

Varies the seed 

yield per tree

-4.5 -4.5 -4.5 -4.5

2 Seed Oil 

Content

Varies the oil 

content of the 

seeds

-1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4

3 Biodiesel 

Efficiency

Varies the 

efficiency of B100 

vs. diesel

-1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1

4 Seed Cake 

Offset

Varies the amount 

of credit for the 

seed cake offsets

-0.52 -0.52 -0.52 -0.52

5 Fertilizer Use Varies the amount 

of fertilizer used 

on the plantation

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

6 Glycerine 

Offset

Varies the 

assumed credit 

for glycerine 

offset

-0.43 -0.43 -0.43 -0.43

7 Tree Density Varies the density 

of planted trees 

per hectare

-0.21 -0.21 -0.21 -0.21

8 Plantation 

Electricity

Varies the amount 

electricity use to 

manage the 

plantation

0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

9 Irrigation 

Required

Varies the amount 

of irrigation water 

required

0.0031 0.0031 0.0031 0.0031

10 N2O 

Volatilization

Varies the N2O 

volatilization rate 

for applied 

nitrogen fertilizer

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

* Model results, Sij values, and sensitivity run differences are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of 

their uncertainty.

** Normalized Sij represents the percent change in model output per 100% percent change in an input parameter. 

Greater absolute Sij values indicated greater model sensitivity to change in the specified input parameter.

*** This column ranks the absolute value of B100 Sij value from greatest to least.
72

7.2.2 Individual Parameters Alternate Values

In addition to the five scenarios that tested the impacts of combinations of parameters and the 

local sensitivity coefficient analysis that compared the relative influence of a one hundred 

percent variation in the estimate of individual input parameters on model outputs, this study also 

selected two single parameters for which an alternate parameter estimate was evaluated. These 

two parameters were selected owing to significant expert uncertainty in the estimation of their 

value. 

N2O Volatilization Rate

The volatilization rate of N2O from applied nitrogen fertilizer is highly uncertain and can vary by 

location. The relationship between N2O emissions and N fertilizer applied is not well-known, 

leading to model uncertainty. The base case uses the IPCC (2006) estimated direct emission 

factor of 0.01 kg N2O/kg N fertilizer. This alternative scenario tests the potential impact of 

including indirect N2O emissions by using the midpoint of Crutzen et al.’s (2008) estimates for 

the volatilization factor, 0.04 kg N2O/kg N fertilizer, a quadrupling of the base case estimate. 

Table 49 reports the results for life cycle GHG emissions. Life cycle NEV and petroleum 

consumption intensity are unaffected by N2O volatilization rates.

Table 49. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/1,000 GTK) for the N2O 

volatilization rate sensitivity scenario for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.1 3.7

Rail Transport–Passenger 13 13 13 12 6.2

Road Transport–Freight 39 38 37 35 18

Road Transport–Passenger 51 50 48 46 24

Fuel Delivered to Transport Vehicles** 

(g CO2e / MJ fuel delivered) 85 83 81 77 40

Percent Change from Diesel*** - -2.5% -5.0% -10% -53%

Percent Change from Base Case Result*** 0.0% 0.92% 1.9% 4.2% 66%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty

** The system boundaries for this calculation are well to pump plus carbon content of fuel.

*** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from the base case result is constant for all transport modes 

as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement 

(biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent 

changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to 

independent rounding.

The results show that quadrupling the N2O volatilization rate leads to an increase in life cycle 

GHG emissions for Jatropha biodiesel production of 66%, thereby reducing the net GHGemission advantage compared with convention diesel from 72% in the base case to 53% in this 

scenario. While it is possible that N2O volatilization could be even higher than the rate tested in 

this scenario, it would appear that the conclusion that Jatropha biodiesel provides a life cycle 

GHG-emission reduction compared to diesel (without consideration of the impact of land-use 

change or soil carbon sequestration) is robust.
73

Biodiesel efficiency loss

The base case for this study assumes there is no efficiency loss when biodiesel is used in place of 

conventional diesel in transport vehicles, according to results of Indian Railways studies 

(Kathpal 2008) and a literature survey of studies on the performance of engines used for road 

transport operating on biodiesel blends (Basha et al. 2009). However, Van Gerpen (2009) 

suggests that biodiesel efficiency loss may be as high as 8% for B100, scaling proportionally 

with biodiesel blends. This scenario tests the impact on results of assuming an 8% efficiency loss 

for the use of B100. Table 50, Table 51, and Table 52 report the model results for GHG 

emissions, NEV, and petroleum consumption intensity for each of the transport modes.

Table 50. Comparison of net life cycle GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e/1,000 GTK) for the 

biodiesel efficiency loss sensitivity scenario for each of four transport modes evaluated in this 

study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight 7.9 7.7 7.4 6.9 2.5

Rail Transport–Passenger 13 13 12 12 4.1

Road Transport–Freight 39 37 36 34 12

Road Transport–Passenger 51 49 48 45 16

Percent Change from Diesel** 0.0% -3.0% -6.1% -12% -69%

Percent Change from Base Case Result** 0.0% 0.40% 0.81% 1.6% 8.7%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from the base case result is constant for all transport modes 

as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement 

(biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent 

changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to 

independent rounding.

Table 50 shows that although net GHG emissions are greater for each of the transport modes 

compared with the base case scenario, the use of B100 still maintains an approximately 69%

GHG-emission advantage compared with conventional diesel. Net GHG emissions increase for 

each transport mode for the B100 scenario by approximately 8.7% from the base case because of 

the assumed efficiency drop of operating the vehicles on Jatropha biodiesel, leading to increases 

in fuel consumption. End-use efficiency leverages all upstream processes such that there is an 

approximately proportional increase in GHG emissions that results from a fuel efficiency 

decrease.

Table 51 shows that despite the loss in efficiency in this scenario, B100 still maintains a positive 

net energy value for all modes of transport, losing only 6.8% in NEV compared with the base 

case.
74

Table 51. Comparison of NEV (MJ/1,000 GTK) for the biodiesel efficiency loss sensitivity scenario 

for each

of four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight -26 -22 -19 -12 49

Rail Transport–Passenger -42 -37 -32 -20 81

Road Transport–Freight -120 -110 -93 -60 240

Road Transport–Passenger -160 -140 -120 -79 310

Percent Change from Diesel** 0.0% -13% -26% -52% -290%

Percent Change from Base Case Result** 0.0% -2.1% -4.9% -16% -6.8%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** Percent change from the diesel reference system and from base case result is constant for all transport modes as 

it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that the fuel economy decrement 

(biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et al. 2009). The percent 

changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported above owing to 

independent rounding.

Finally, as expected, petroleum consumption intensity also increases because of the increased 

demand for fuel created by the drop in fuel consumption efficiency in this scenario (Table 52). 

Base case values increase by approximately 8.7% for B100 but Jatropha biodiesel production and 

use still reduces petroleum consumption by 87% compared with conventional diesel.
75

Table 52. Comparison of net petroleum consumption and displacement intensity for the biodiesel 

efficiency loss sensitivity scenario for each of four transport modes evaluated in this study*

Units Diesel B5 B10 B20 B100

Rail Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 0.32

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

- 0.095 0.19 0.39 2.2

Rail Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

4.1 4.0 3.8 3.5 0.54

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

- 0.16 0.32 0.64 3.6

Road Transport–Freight

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

12 12 11 10 1.6

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

- 0.46 0.93 1.9 11

Road Transport–Passenger

Net Petroleum 

Consumption Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

16 15 15 13 2.1

Net Petroleum 

Displacement Intensity

kg crude oil/

1,000 GTK

- 0.61 1.2 2.5 14

Percent Change from Diesel** % 0.0% -3.8% -7.7% -16% -87%

Percent Change from Base Case Result** % 0.0% 0.40% 0.81% 1.6% 8.7%

* The reported results assume a 20-year system lifetime with 2 billion GTK transported over that time. The study 

employs IPCC (2007) GWP values. Results are rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty.

** Percent change in petroleum consumption intensity from the diesel reference system and from the base case result 

is constant for all transport modes as it is due to variations in the wells-to-pump portion of the life cycle, assuming that 

the fuel economy decrement (biodiesel compared to diesel) does not vary by transport mode (Kathpal 2008, Basha et 

al. 2009). The percent changes reported here may not equal those achieved by calculation using the results reported 

above owing to independent rounding.
76

7.3 Interpretation and Comparison of Sensitivity Analyses 

7.3.1 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis Results

As many of the model’s input parameters are uncertain, the sensitivity analyses are useful in 

focusing future research on the parameters most likely to impact study results and policy 

decisions. The parametric sensitivity analysis of this study indicates that dry seed yield, biodiesel 

efficiency, and seed oil content are the most influential individual parameters. Dry seed yield and 

seed oil content both directly determine the amount of Jatropha oil that can be extracted from one 

hectare of land, and thus are functions of not only land quality and location but also of human 

inputs such as fertilizer and irrigation water. As the seed yield and oil content improve through 

optimal cultivation, inputs of fertilizer and irrigation water per liter of Jatropha oil extracted from 

an area of cultivated land decrease, leading to lower life cycle impacts. Unfortunately, the 

literature does not contain well-correlated sets of data that accurately predict dry seed yield and 

seed oil content given a set of agro-climatic conditions and a selected tree density. Further 

research is needed in this area to improve the predictive quality of models that evaluate the 

impacts of Jatropha cultivation. However, the sensitivity analyses of this study suggest that the 

use of irrigation water and fertilizer do not preclude obtaining net GHG emission and petroleum 

consumption benefits if they more than commensurately increase seed yield and oil content thus 

offsetting the impacts of the additional inputs.

The parameter “biodiesel efficiency” models whether there is a fuel consumption penalty related 

to utilizing increasing blends of biodiesel in transport vehicles. While Indian railways studies 

(Kathpal 2008) have indicated no penalty for blends up to B20 for rail transport and the literature 

review by Basha et al. (2009) suggest similar results for road transport, Van Gerpen (2009) 

suggests a penalty of up to 8% with B100 (1.6% for B20). Nevertheless, even if an 8% efficiency 

loss is assumed, Jatropha biodiesel still realizes significant, though slightly tempered, GHGemission and petroleum consumption savings along with positive NEVs assuming the remainder 

of the base case analysis conditions remain constant (Table 50, Table 51, and Table 52).

7.3.2 Rose Plots of Scenario Sensitivity Results

An important function of the sensitivity scenario analyses is to determine the impact on projected 

reductions under alternative plausible biodiesel production scenarios that are more or less 

optimized than the base case scenario. Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 18, and Figure 19 display the 

results of all sensitivity scenario analyses in rose plots for each of the evaluated metrics. Each 

spur of the plots represents a distinct sensitivity scenario: scenarios A through E, along with 

single parameter sensitivity scenarios focusing on N2O volatilization and biodiesel efficiency 

loss. Results are plotted as a ratio of the sensitivity scenario result compared to the base case 

result, where a result greater than 1 indicates an increase in that metric, while values less than 1 

indicate reductions in that metric. These plots can be used to quickly determine whether the 

analyzed sensitivity scenarios are having a beneficial or negative impact on the study’s results 

compared with the base case scenario. 
 77 

Figure 16. Result of sensitivity analysis on B100 net life cycle GHG emission intensity, 

as multiple of base case value 

Figure 16 displays the rose plot for net life cycle GHG emissions for B100 for the base case and 

for all sensitivity scenarios. Five of the seven sensitivity analyses increase GHG emissions 

suggesting that the base case GHG-emission reductions may be near the upper end of the 

plausible range. Only two scenarios lead to additional GHG-emission savings. In the “Good 

Land, High Maintenance” scenario, the combination of fertile land and intensive cultivation 

practices lead to increased yields that more than offset the impacts of increased inputs. In the 

“Biomass Offset–Heat” scenario, biomass collected from the field is assumed to be used for local 

thermal energy as opposed to being used to generate electricity. The combination of these results 

suggests that while the magnitude of reductions under base case conditions may be somewhat 

optimistic, the prediction that Jatropha biodiesel offers reductions in GHG emissions compared 

to petroleum diesel appears robust. 

1.0

2.4

1.4

0.63

1.0

1.6

0.61

1.1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Base Case

Marginal Land, Low

Irrigation

Marginal Land, High

Maintenance

Good Land, High

Maintenance

Increased Catchment and

Distribution

N2O Volatilization Rate

BiomassOffset ‐ Heat

Biodiesel Efficiency Loss
78

Figure 17. Result of sensitivity analysis on B100 net energy value, as multiple of

base case value

Figure 17 displays the NEV for B100 under all of the sensitivity scenarios. Three of the seven 

scenarios result in small reductions in NEV ranging from 2% to 30%. As with GHG emissions, 

the scenarios yielding more beneficial results are the “Good Land, High Maintenance” and 

“Biomass Offset–Heat scenario.” N2O volatization rate has no impact on NEV. The “Marginal 

Land, Low Irrigation” scenario has by far the greatest negative impact on NEV reducing the 

NEV for B100 by 99%. However, even in that case, the NEV remains positive for B100 

compared with a negative NEV for conventional petroleum diesel. Therefore, while the NEV of 

biodiesel may be significantly reduced by a drop in seed yield, it appears likely that Jatropha 

biodiesel production and processing will maintain a positive NEV.

1.0

0.0075

0.67

1.2

0.98

1.0

1.2

0.94

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Base Case

Marginal Land, Low Irrigation

Marginal Land, High 

Maintenance

Good Land, High Maintenance

Increased Catchment and 

Distribution

N2O Volatilization Rate

Biomass Offset - Heat

Biodiesel Efficiency Loss
 79 

Figure 18. Result of sensitivity analysis on B100 net life cycle petroleum displacement intensity, 

as multiple of base case value 

Figure 18 displays the results of net life cycle petroleum displacement intensity, while Figure 19 

shows the correlated results for net life cycle petroleum consumption. As shown in Figure 18 the 

results for net petroleum displacement are relatively robust varying from being approximately 

equivalent to the base case value to a reduction of 27%. In contrast, the net petroleum 

consumption values vary by a greater range of 0.53 to 2.8 times the base case value. The greater 

variations for petroleum consumption compared with the variations for petroleum displacement 

are the result of the base case value for B100 petroleum consumption being significantly smaller 

than the base case value for B100 petroleum displacement, thereby magnifying the relative 

impact of small changes in the values for the sensitivity analysis scenarios. As with GHG 

emissions and NEV, the “Marginal Land, Low Irrigation” scenario results in the biggest 

detriment to the petroleum consumption and displacement indicators. However, even the most 

pessimistic scenario evaluated in this study (“Marginal Land, Low Irrigation”) still results in 

petroleum consumption reductions of 66% compared with conventional diesel strongly 

supporting projections of significant crude oil savings from replacing conventional diesel with 

Jatropha biodiesel. 

1.0

0.73

0.91

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Base Case

Marginal Land, Low

Irrigation

Marginal Land, High

Maintenance

Good Land, High

Maintenance

Increased Catchment and

Distribution

N2OVolatilizationRate

Biomass Offset ‐ Heat

Biodiesel Efficiency Loss
 80 

Figure 19. Result of sensitivity analysis on B100 net life cycle petroleum consumption intensity, 

as multiple of base case value 

1.0

2.8

1.6

0.57

1.0

1.0

0.53

1.1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Base Case

Marginal Land, Low

Irrigation

Marginal Land, High

Maintenance

Good Land, High

Maintenance

Increased Catchment

andDistribution

N2OVolatilization

Rate

Biomass Offset ‐ Heat

Biodiesel Efficiency

Loss
81

8 Discussion

This section reviews several aspects of this study that are critical to be aware of when 

interpreting its results. This study has significant limitations that constrain the generalizability 

and certainty of its findings. 

8.1 Limitations of this Study

As discussed in the original study, Whitaker and Heath (2009), the analysis of Jatropha biodiesel 

faces several limitations that constrain the interpretation and certainty of the results presented in 

this report. The discussion of limitations from Whitaker and Heath (2009) is repeated and 

expanded upon in this section. Categories of limitations include technological scope, modeling 

approach, data availability, economics and markets, metrics evaluated, and state of the science. 

Each category of limitation is discussed in further detail in the following subsections, followed 

by a discussion of the generalizability of the conclusions of this study.

Technological Scope

1. The scope of this study is limited in terms of the technologies evaluated. Upon the advice 

of the IOC, this study focused on large-scale methods of Jatropha cultivation and 

biodiesel production technologies. This study did not evaluate alternative methods and 

technologies, and thus its results should not be considered reflective of the impacts or 

benefits of alternative systems.

2. Jatropha as a feedstock for production of biodiesel was the focus of this study. The results 

of this study are not applicable to biodiesel production systems using other feedstocks nor 

to other biofuels as cultivation and processing requirements can vary greatly amongst 

biofuels and feedstocks.

Modeling Approach

1. This study is prospective in that it attempts to evaluate biodiesel production systems as 

they would be built in the near future in India. It is not based on data collected from an 

already established system. Consequently, it is unclear how well the narrative evaluated 

actually describes systems as they will be built.

2. This analysis was conducted using the best available published, secondary data. Data 

were selected for quality and applicability to IOC-recommended Jatropha biodiesel 

systems in the Chhattisgarh region in India. However, as these data were collected from 

many disparate sources most of which were not describing systems exactly like the base 

case, their applicability to the study region and technology was not perfect and not 

entirely internally consistent either. Therefore, results of this study will likely differ from 

the true impacts of real systems.

Data Availability and Certainty

1. India has not yet developed a comprehensive LCI database covering the production of 

basic materials, energy and fuels, transportation, and the ultimate disposal of goods based 

on India-specific conditions. As a result, many life cycle stages required inputs from 

better-established European databases, particularly to obtain infrastructure impacts. A 

key limitation of this study is that the authors were required to use non India-specific data 

to represent Indian processes where data were lacking. Specific examples of substituting 

non-Indian data included truck transport, ocean tanker transport, and crude oil extraction. 
82

This study improved upon Whitaker and Heath (2009) by customizing the European 

diesel-refining module with specific electricity and thermal energy consumption values 

for VIZAG, the selected Indian refinery. It is unclear how relevant the non-Indian data 

are to Indian processes and how much of an influence on the final results the use of 

Indian-specific data throughout the study would have. 

2. Limited data were available for India-specific waste generation and end-of-life scenarios 

for both the biodiesel and diesel pathways. Facing this limitation, this study omitted 

impacts associated with the ultimate disposal of process waste. Inclusion of these impacts 

would likely not affect the conclusions of this study as additional GHG emissions, 

petroleum use, or energy demand for waste disposal in India are likely very small relative 

to the processes already included.

3. Site-specific data were unavailable for assessing potential GHG-emission impacts from 

direct land-use change. Conversion of the Planning Commission-identified lands to 

Jatropha production could result in greater, equal, or lesser soil carbon sequestration 

depending on the previous level of vegetation of the sites (Reinhardt et al. 2008). 

However, in the absence of strictly enforced regulations preventing the use of currently 

cultivated lands for Jatropha plantations, the better economics of higher yields could 

induce some conversion of prime agricultural land to Jatropha plantations. Reinhardt et 

al. (2008) estimated maximum potential GHG emissions from direct land-use change of 

approximately 73 tonnes of CO2 released per hectare if medium vegetated land is cleared 

to prepare land for cultivation with Jatropha plants based on an assumed net difference in 

carbon content of the vegetation pre- and post-cultivation of 20 tonnes carbon/ha. If 

Reinhardt et al.’s (2008) direct land-use change assumptions are applied to the base case 

analysis scenario conditions analyzed in our current study, the maximum direct land-use 

change GHG emissions would equate to approximately the following percentages of total 

20-year net life cycle GHG emissions for the analyzed transport modes: 0.25% for 

passenger-road transport, 0.33% for freight-road transport, 1.0% for passenger-rail 

transport, and 1.6% for freight-rail transport. Therefore, the conclusions of the current 

study would not likely change significantly if the impacts of direct land-use change were 

included.

Economics and Markets

1. Economic analyses were not conducted to evaluate the feasibility of full market 

penetration of Jatropha biodiesel as B20 or of the economic viability of cultivating 

Jatropha only on marginal lands. As demand for Jatropha biodiesel increases, the higher 

yields and lower required inputs for cultivation on better land could potentially lead to 

prime agricultural land being converted to Jatropha plantations despite the projection of 

the Planning Commission of India that Jatropha development will occur on marginal 

lands. Conversion of prime agricultural lands to Jatropha plantations could result in 

indirect land use change impacts that would need to be evaluated. However, as shown in 

the sensitivity analyses, the increase in GHG benefits under the “good land, high 

maintenance” scenario would partially offset GHG impacts from indirect land use 

change. Trade-offs between using good land and indirect land use change were not 

examined in this study.
83

2. This study does not perform an analysis of the potential market for glycerine co-product 

as biodiesel production increases. The results of this study assume that glycerine is fully 

utilized as a co-product and that it offsets the production of synthetic glycerine. If 

glycerine co-product benefits are omitted, the analyzed sustainability and energy security 

benefits of Jatropha biodiesel production and use are diminished, but the conclusions of 

the study do not change. For example, omitting glycerine co-product benefits from the 

base case analysis scenario decreases the GHG emission benefits of B100 compared with 

the petroleum diesel reference case from a 72% reduction to a 60% reduction.

Metrics Evaluated

The full extent of the sustainability and energy security impacts of switching from conventional 

diesel to Jatropha biodiesel is not fully represented by the metrics evaluated in this study. Other 

impacts such as hazardous waste generated, pollutant emissions to air, water, and soil, land-use 

changes, water consumption, and socio-economic impacts like gender equity are also important 

considerations in a full impact assessment. However, adequate data were not available to include 

an analysis of these metrics in this study.

State of the Science

Biodiesel cultivation and production systems in India are still immature. This study represents 

the current state of knowledge and data availability. Changes to the systems and improvements 

in the quality and quantity of data available are expected as the technologies and procedures 

mature. Thus, a reassessment using new data as they become available may alter the findings of 

this study.

8.1.1 Generalizability of Results

The previous section discussed limitations to the interpretation of the results of this study based 

on the conditions analyzed and data available. However, there are reasons to believe that the 

results of this study might be indicative to how other systems would perform. For instance, while 

this study was designed to address Indian-specific conditions, the results may be generalizable to 

other locations because much of the input data either originated from studies of other regions 

(e.g., use of ecoinvent data sets describing European systems) or are based on parameters whose 

values were not made site-specific (e.g., N2O volatilization rate). Furthermore, some parameter 

values reflect the crude state of the science more than they do a detailed reflection of siteappropriate values, e.g., fertilization rates. The sensitivity analyses, particularly the local 

sensitivity coefficients, are designed to allow researchers to evaluate net GHG-emission and 

petroleum consumption benefits given alternate scenarios that are due to changes in geographic 

location or agro-climatic conditions. 

8.2 Uncertainty Analysis

Data limitations prevented a quantitative estimation of uncertainty. Many important parameters 

have not been studied in sufficient detail to enable proper characterization of variability and 

uncertainty, to identify causal relationships between parameters, and, in some cases, to even 

establish plausible value ranges for the parameters under a given scenario. However, several 

steps were taken in an effort to improve upon the uncertainty analysis in Whitaker and Heath 

(2009). These steps included analyzing five internally consistent sensitivity scenarios (scenarios 

A-E) in addition to analyzing the local sensitivity of model results to parameters tested one at a 

time, and to adding an extended benchmarking analysis to compare the results to other studies 
84

conducted both in India and in other regions of the world. This study does not calculate the best 

and worst case scenarios as Whitaker and Heath (2009) did because the best/worst scenarios

were not internally consistent and were deemed to add limited value to the analysis as they only 

provide estimates of extreme boundary conditions that are not expected to occur. 

8.3 Projections of Absolute Petroleum Displaced and Net GHG Emission 

Reductions by Utilization of Jatropha Biodiesel in the Indian Road and Rail 

Sectors

To provide context for the results of this study, the magnitude of potential absolute petroleum 

consumption and GHG-emission reductions from the complete substitution of B20 blends of 

Jatropha biodiesel for petroleum diesel in all four transportation sectors of India is analyzed. 

Current diesel demand (using year 2006 data as the latest available) is considered in making 

comparisons of relative magnitudes of potential reductions in the near term. Projections to the 

year 2020 are then used to analyze whether the relative magnitudes of potential reductions 

change when considering projections of Indian road and rail transport by sector. 

8.3.1 Calculation Method

Results for projected reductions in petroleum consumption and GHG emissions for current 

conditions and 2020 are presented in Table 53 and Table 54. Projections for petroleum 

displacement in Table 53 are calculated based on the anticipated petroleum displacement per 

1,000 GTK for B20 for the base case scenario (as presented in Table 17). Similarly, GHGemission reductions in Table 54 are calculated based on the anticipated GHG-emission 

reductions per 1,000 GTK for B20 for the base case scenario (as presented in Table 15). The 

calculations for petroleum displacement and GHG-emission reductions are scaled according to 

estimated total GTK in each of the four analyzed transportation sectors for current conditions and 

2020. The following sources and method were used to obtain estimates of GTK for current 

conditions (represented by year 2006 data) and 2020:

1. Rail transport—freight: GTK for diesel freight-rail transport for the year 2006 (320 

billion GTK) is reported on page 153 of the Indian Railways 2007-2008 Annual 

Statistical Statements (Ministry of Railways 2008). The Planning Commission projects 

that total freight transport (rail and road) will grow to 5,500 billion GTK by 2020 and that 

rail-freight transport will have a 20% mode share (1,100 billion GTK) (Planning 

Commission 2007). 

2. Rail transport—passenger: GTK for passenger-rail transport for the year 2006 (230 

billion GTK) is also reported by the Ministry of Railways (2008). However, the Planning 

Commission did not project passenger-rail GTK to 2020, so projections from Singh 

(2008) and average data from the Ministry of Railways (2008) are used to calculate 

estimated GTK. Singh (2008) estimates that total 2020 passenger transport (rail and road) 

in India will be approximately 13,000 billion pkm with a mode share of 8.3% for trains

(1,100 billion pkm) (Singh 2008). Assuming that the 3.8% share9

 9 Over 95% of Indian passenger train transport on a pkm basis takes place on electric, multiple unit, suburban trains 

as opposed to diesel trains (Ministry of Railways 2008)

of train passengerkilometers in 2006 that was supplied by diesel trains (Ministry of Railways 2008) applies 

to 2020, passenger transport on diesel trains in 2020 will be approximately 42 billion 
85

pkm. Using an average passenger loading of 0.1 pkm/GTK10

3. Road transport—freight: Estimated GTK for freight-road transport in 2006 is based on 

data in Table No. 1.10 of India’s Road Transport Yearbook for 2006-2007 (Ministry of 

Shipping, Road Transport, and Highways 2009). Estimated road-freight transport for 

2020 (4,400 billion GTK) is calculated based on the Planning Commission’s projections 

of 5,500 billion GTK of total freight transport in 2020 with an 80% modal share for roadfreight transport (Planning Commission 2007).

for diesel passenger-rail

transport yields a projection for 2020 diesel passenger-rail transport in India of 420 

billion GTK.

4. Road transport—passenger: GTK for passenger-road transport via buses was estimated 

using data from multiple sources. Singh (2008) estimates 5,555 billion pkm of passenger

transport in 2006 with a 60.7% modal split for buses. Singh (2005) estimates an average 

loading factor for Indian buses of 40 pkm/vkm. Whitaker (2007) estimates an average 

Indian passenger bus gross weight of 15 tonnes leading to a conversion factor of 15

GTK/vkm. Estimated GTK for 2020 is based on projections by Singh (2008) of a 43.6% 

modal split for buses out of the approximately 13,000 billion pkm of passenger transport 

predicted for 2020. Bus weights and passenger loading factors are assumed to be the

same as in 2006. 

8.3.2 Petroleum Displacement

In 2006, India consumed approximately 145 million tonnes of crude oil with over 75% imported 

(International Energy Agency 2009). The transport sector accounted for approximately 25% (~36 

million tonnes) of this consumption. According to India’s Ministry of Railways (2008), in 2005-

2006, Indian Railways operations accounted for approximately 230 billion GTK of passenger 

transport and 320 billion GTK of freight transport. Using the base case petroleum displacement 

results from Table 17, offsetting conventional diesel consumption with B20 would have saved 

about 160,000 tonnes of crude oil per year for rail passenger transport and 130,000 tonnes of 

crude oil per year for rail-freight transport in 2006 (Table 53). In the road sector in 2005-2006, 

goods carrying vehicles moved approximately 660 billion GTK of freight (Ministry of Shipping, 

Road Transport, and Highways 2009) and buses (with passengers) moved approximately 1,300 

billion GTK. Replacing conventional diesel with B20 could have saved 1.4 million tonnes of 

crude oil in the road-freight sector and 3.5 million tonnes of crude oil in the passenger bus 

transport sector in 2006 (Table 53). The combined savings for the road and rail sectors using a 

blend of 20% Jatropha-based biodiesel and 80% conventional diesel could have been as high as 

5.2 million tonnes of crude oil per year or 14% of annual transport sector crude oil consumption 

(3.5% of total annual Indian crude oil consumption)11

 10 Calculated from 2006 passenger-rail transport data in the Indian Railways 2007-2008 Annual Statistical 

Statements (Ministry of Railways 2008)

. By 2020, the total petroleum displacement 

from substituting B20 for conventional diesel in the four transport modes analyzed in this study 

is estimated at approximately 15 million tonnes of crude oil per year. 

11 These statistics are meant to illustrate the theoretical maximum and not to show what could be plausibly achieved 

in the short term given available land and other constraints. Results are based on LCA of Jatropha biodiesel only, not 

other feedstocks.
86

Table 53. Projected petroleum displacement for complete substitution of Jatropha B20 produced under 

base case conditions for conventional diesel in the four transport modes analyzed in this study*

Current Conditions 2020

Transport Mode Estimated 

Annual Gross 

Tonne 

Kilometers

(in billions)

Total 

Petroleum 

Displacement 

for B20 (tonnes 

crude oil)

Estimated 

Annual Gross 

Tonne 

Kilometers

(in billions)

Total 

Petroleum 

Displacement 

for B20 (tonnes 

crude oil)

Rail Transport–Freight 320 130,000 1,100 460,000

Rail Transport–Passenger 230 160,000 420 290,000

Road Transport–Freight 660 1,400,000 4,400 9,000,000

Road Transport–Passenger 1,300 3,500,000 2,100 5,700,000

Total–All Analyzed Modes 2,500 5,200,000 8,000 15,000,000

* Figures rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty. Columns may not sum due to 

independent rounding of each value to two significant figures.

8.3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions

GHG-emission reductions can also be projected for each sector using the annual GTK values and 

the base case GHG-emission factors from Table 15. For the rail passenger and freight 

transportation sectors, annual GHG emissions that could potentially be reduced by substituting 

conventional diesel with B20 are estimated to be 420,000 mtCO2e and 350,000 mtCO2e under 

current conditions, respectively. For the road transport sector, potential savings under current 

conditions from freight transport and bus passenger transport could reach up to 3.5 million 

mtCO2e and 9.1 million mt CO2e respectively. Given India’s national GHG emissions inventory 

of approximately 1,800 million mtCO2e/yr in 2006 with 6% of GHG emissions from the 

transport sector (Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2008), the combined savings for a full 

substitution of B20 for conventional diesel in the analyzed road and rail sectors could have been

0.7% of India’s national GHG emissions or 12% of India’s transport sector GHG emissions. By 

2020, the potential total GHG-emission reduction resulting from a full substitution of B20 for 

conventional diesel in the four transportation sectors analyzed in this study is estimated at 

approximately 40 million mtCO2e/yr.

Table 54. Projected net life cycle GHG emission reductions for complete substitution of Jatropha 

B20 produced under base case conditions for conventional diesel in the four transport modes 

analyzed in this study*

Current Conditions 2020

Transport Mode Estimated 

Gross Tonne 

Kilometers

(in billions)

Total GHG 

Emission 

Reductions for 

B20 (mtCO2e)

Estimated 

Gross Tonne 

Kilometers

(in billions)

Total GHG 

Emission 

Reductions for 

B20 (mtCO2e)

Rail Transport–Freight 320 350,000 1,100 1,200,000

Rail Transport–Passenger 230 420,000 420 760,000

Road Transport–Freight 660 3,500,000 4,400 23,000,000

Road Transport–Passenger 1,300 9,100,000 2,100 15,000,000

Total–All Analyzed Modes 2,500 13,000,000 8,000 40,000,000

* Figures rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty. Columns may not sum due to 

independent rounding of each value to two significant figures.
87

8.3.4 Transport Sector Comparison for Current Conditions and 2020

The approximate amounts of biodiesel required for the complete substitution of B20 for 

petroleum diesel for each transport mode are shown in Table 55. Estimates are based on base 

case fuel economy assumptions for each transport mode evaluated in this study. 

Estimates for required cultivated land to completely replace 20% of diesel fuel requirements for 

the evaluated transportation sectors can be made based on an assumed yield. We provide this 

estimate not as a prediction that such lands will be available but rather to compare to at least one 

estimate of available land to offer a preliminary check that the cultivation of Jatropha is feasible 

at the scale required under Indian policy. For this assessment, we assume a yield of 1,300-1,400 

liters of biodiesel per hectare of Jatropha cultivated under the base case conditions considered in 

this study. In the near term, approximately 4.8 million hectares of land would have needed to be 

cultivated to meet B20 fuel substitution requirements for the four transportation sectors analyzed 

in this study. By 2020, the required amount of land would grow to over 14 million hectares. The 

Planning Commission (2003) identified 13.4 million hectares of land as suitable for Jatropha 

cultivation. That the amount of land identified by the Planning Commission nearly equals the 

land required for full B20 substitution does not imply a prediction that transitioning such a large, 

diverse and geographically disparate amount of land to Jatropha cultivation would be 

economically, politically and logistically achievable. Also, these projections do not account for 

population growth, increasing affluence and other socio-economic and demographic changes that 

could impact the availability of land for Jatropha cultivation. Despite these limitations, it would 

appear that the amount of available land is of a similar order of magnitude to support the 

fulfillment of Indian policy for biodiesel substitution. 
88

The Planning Commission noted that only about half the available land is abandoned, fallow, or 

wasteland, whereas the other half is composed of under-stocked forestland or farm land that 

requires protective hedging. Use of plantation sites with significant levels of current vegetation 

could increase GHG emissions related to direct land-use change, though, as shown in the 

bounding analysis in Section 8.1, the likely magnitude of the increase in GHG emissions is 

small. If determining robust estimates of the potential GHG emissions associated with the set of 

specific land tracts identified for Jatropha cultivation is important, then additional research on the 

topic of GHG emissions associated with land use change should be prioritized.

Table 55. Estimated amounts of biodiesel required to completely substitute Jatropha B20 for allpetroleum diesel for the four transport modes analyzed in this study*

Current Conditions 2020

Transport Mode Estimated 

Gross Tonne 

Kilometers

(in billions)

Estimated 

Liters Biodiesel 

Required

(in millions) 

Estimated 

Gross Tonne 

Kilometers

(in billions)

Estimated 

Liters Biodiesel 

Required

(in millions)

Rail Transport–Freight 320 170 1,100 580

Rail Transport–Passenger 230 200 420 370

Road Transport–Freight 660 1,700 4,400 11,000

Road Transport–Passenger 1,300 4,400 2,100 7,100

Total–All Analyzed Modes 2,500 6,500 8,000 19,000

* Figures rounded to two significant figures as an indication of their uncertainty. Columns may not sum due to 

independent rounding of each value to two significant figures.

As Table 53 and Table 54 show, the potential petroleum consumption and GHG-emission 

reductions for a complete substitution of B20 in the road sector account for approximately 95% 

of estimated total reductions under current conditions. By 2020, the road sectors’ potential share 

of petroleum consumption and GHG-emission reductions is projected to exceed 95% as the 

modal share of transport in India shifts even further toward road. While substitution of B20 for 

petroleum diesel in the rail sector in the near term may be the simplest to execute because of a 

smaller demand for biodiesel and because of a greater degree of centralization of refueling 

locations for locomotives, the greatest near-term, potential impact would come from an 

investment in a B20 fueling infrastructure for passenger buses. Over time, as more biodiesel 

becomes available, the B20 refueling infrastructure could be expanded to include more roadside 

refueling stations to enable B20 substitution in road-freight transport. In the long term, however, 

it is projected that substitution of B20 for petroleum diesel in road-freight transport will yield the 

greatest potential absolute reductions in both petroleum consumption and GHG emissions, 

though only if the required amount of biodiesel and the necessary refueling infrastructure are 

available. 
89

9 Conclusions

India’s transportation sector relies heavily on imported petroleum-based fuels. The Planning 

Commission of India and the Indian government recommended increased use of blended 

biodiesel in transportation fleets and identified Jatropha as a potentially important feedstock. 

IOC and IR are collaborating to increase the use of biodiesel blends up to B20 in Indian transport 

vehicles, and the Planning Commission (2003) and later the Ministry of New & Renewable 

Energy (2009) has set a goal of offsetting 20% of transport-sector diesel consumption with 

biodiesel by 2017. This study evaluated the life cycle GHG emissions, net energy value, and 

petroleum displacement impacts of integrating larger percentages of Jatropha-based biodiesel in 

transport vehicle operations in India and identified the parameters that have the greatest impact 

on selected attributes of sustainability of the system. This study was designed to evaluate 

Jatropha cultivation, biodiesel production, and biodiesel blend utilization under Indian conditions 

to the greatest degree possible.

For the base case considered, this study found that, per MJ of fuel energy content, a blend of B20 

would reduce GHG emissions by 14%, reduce petroleum consumption by 17% and increase the 

net energy value by 58% compared with the conventional diesel baseline. These results suggest 

that the Jatropha-based biodiesel system under consideration can achieve the identified 

sustainability goals of reducing net GHG emissions and displacing petroleum consumption. 

Using sensitivity analyses, this study also identified dry seed yield, seed oil content, and 

biodiesel fuel consumption efficiency as critical parameters that individually exert the greatest 

influence on the evaluated sustainability and energy security metrics. This study also confirmed 

that reductions in the GHG emissions and petroleum consumption are maintained under multiple 

plausible biodiesel cultivation, processing, and distribution scenarios, though GHG emission 

reductions compared to petroleum diesel are reduced to zero if seed yield fall below 1,250 kg / 

ha-yr. Furthermore, while the base case did not consider the potential impacts of direct land-use 

change, a bounding estimate using results from Reinhardt et al. (2008) found that the magnitude 

and direction of benefits would likely not change considerably even if those potential impacts 

were considered.

As agro-climatic conditions and optimal biodiesel feedstocks vary widely throughout the world, 

no one study can definitively determine the sustainability of biofuels in all scenarios. However, 

the results of this study and other reviewed studies suggest that under plausible growing 

conditions and production scenarios, Jatropha-based biodiesel shows promise for helping India 

achieve its GHG-emission reduction and petroleum displacement goals, with the greatest 

absolute potential reductions being achievable in the road bus, passenger transport sector in the 

near term and in the road-freight transport sector in 2020. However, as cultivation expands to the 

scale required to meet the mandated biodiesel production levels, seed and oil yields and the 

intensity of cultivation inputs must be closely evaluated in assessing the sustainability of any 

individual proposed Jatropha biodiesel production project.
90

10 Research Recommendations 

With the results of this study and the influence of uncertain individual parameters as shown in 

the sensitivity analyses in mind, four topics of future research are prioritized.

1. Additional field trial-based data sets and predictive models are needed to forecast 

anticipated seed yield, oil content, fertilizer use, and irrigation requirements based on a 

wider variety of agro-climate conditions. Such models would allow policymakers and 

decision makers can determine the economic viability and environmental effects of 

proposed projects.

2. Economic and market penetration analyses are required to evaluate the feasibility of large 

scale adoption of B20 using Jatropha biodiesel including anticipated direct and indirect 

land use impacts, potential for use of marginal lands versus prime agricultural lands, 

economic impact on Jatropha farmers and local communities, and market availability for 

Jatropha biodiesel co-products. Economic and market analyses will also assist in framing 

scenarios for analyses like the current study. 

3. Viable co-product substitution scenarios for all Jatropha cultivation activities and 

biodiesel production processes need to be developed for India-specific economic and 

technological conditions. Particular research is needed on the use of glycerine, 

combustion of seed husks, and use of the de-oiled Jatropha seed cake.

4. Research on other sustainability metrics, e.g., water consumption, air, soil, and water 

quality, and economic and gender equity, are required to more fully understand the 

impacts of large-scale expansion of Jatropha biodiesel production and use on both the 

environment and the local population.
91

References

Achten W. M. J.; Verchot L; Franken Y. J .; Mathijs, E.; Singh, V. P.; Aerts R.; Muys, B. (2008). 

“Jatropha Bio-diesel Production and Use.” Biomass and Bioenergy (31:12); pp. 1063-1084. doi: 

10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.03.003.

Adriaans, T. (2006). "Sustainability of Solvent Extraction for Jatropha Curcas." Prepared for 

FACT Foundation, November 2006. http://www.fact-fuels.org/media_en/FACT_(2006)_-

_Suitability_of_solvent_extraction_for_jatropha_curcas Accessed July 29, 2008.

Argonne National Laboratory. (2009). “The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and 

Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) Model,” March 23, 2009. http://www.transportation

.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/ Accessed January 08, 2010.

Basha, S.; Gopal, K.; Jebaraj, S. (2009). “A Review on Biodiesel Production, Combustion, 

Emissions and Performance.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (13:6-7); pp. 1628-

1634.

Bureau of Energy Efficiency, Ministry of Power, Government of India. (2008). "Mathura 

Refinery - Indian Oil Corporation Limited - Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)." http://www.emtindia.net/eca2005/Award2005CD/AwardBook/Refinery.pdf Accessed February 10, 2010.

Chhattisgarh Online. (2008). “Raipur.” http://chhattisgarhonline.in/profile/districts/Raipur.asp

Accessed September 6, 2008.

Crutzen, P. J.; Mosier, A. R.; Smith, K. A.; Winiwarter, W. (2008). "N2O Release from Agrobiofuel Production Negates Global Warming Reduction by Replacing Fossil Fuels." Atmos. 

Chem. Phys (8); pp. 389-395. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/8/389/2008/acp-8-389-2008.pdf

Accessed July 31, 2008.

Distance Calculator India. (2008). http://www.liveindia.com/distance/Visakhapatnam.html

Accessed November 12, 2008.

Distances.com (2008) "World Port Distances Calculator," Available Online: 

http://www.distances.com. Last Accessed: June 19, 2008.

Dunn, R. (2003). "Biodiesel as a Locomotive Fuel in Canada." Prepared for Transportation 

Development Centre, Transport Canada, May 2003. TP 14106E. Montreal, Quebec: 

Transportation Development Centre. http://www.tc.gc.ca/innovation/tdc/publication/pdf/14100/

14106e.pdf Accessed January 11, 2010.

European Automobile Manufacturers Association. (2009). "Commercial Vehicles and CO2: The 

Business of Fuel Economy." http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20090317_CV_

brochure.pdf Accessed August 24, 2009.

Farrell, A.; Plevin, R.; Turner, B.; Jones, A.; O’Hare, M.; Kammen, D. (2006). “Ethanol Can 

Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals.” Science 27 (311:5760); pp. 506-508. 

doi:10.1126/science.1121416.
92

Global Exchange for Social Investment. (2008). “Global Market Study on Jatropha: Final 

Report.” Prepared for the World Wide Fund for Nature, May 8, 2008. http://www.jatrophaplatform.org/documents/GEXSI_Global-Jatropha-Study_FULL-REPORT.pdf Accessed

January 12, 2010.

Gubler, R. (2006). "Biodiesel" Chemical Economics Handbook Marketing Report. Menlo Park, 

CA: SRI Consulting, November 2006.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. (2008). "Annual Report 2007-2008." http://www

.hindustanpetroleum.com/Upload/En/AnnualReports/Files/AnnualReport2007-08.pdf Accessed 

January 12, 2010. 

Indian Central Electricity Authority. (2008). "Highlights of Power Sector." http://cea.nic.in/

power_sec_reports/Executive_Summary/2008_04/1-2.pdf Accessed June 19, 2008.

Indian Railways. (2008). "Annual Report and Accounts: 2006-2007: Financial Statements and 

Operating Statistics." http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/deptts/yearbook/annual-rep-0607/fin

-stmt-optg-stmt.pdf Accessed January 12, 2010.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). "2006 IPCC Guidelines for 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.” Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Programme, edited by: Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T.; Tanabe, K. Volume 4, 

Chapter 11, Table 11.1, N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and 

Urea Application. Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).

IPCC. (2007). "Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, chap. 2.10.2: Direct Global Warming 

Potentials. ” Ed. Solomon, S., Qin D.; Manning, M.; Chen Z.; Marquis M.; Averyt, K. B.; 

Tignor, M.; Miller H. L. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html.

International Energy Agency. (2009). “Oil in India in 2006.” http://iea.org/stats/oildata.asp?

COUNTRY_CODE=IN Accessed October 20, 2009.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006). “Environmental Management –

Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines.” ISO 14044:2006. Geneva, Switzerland: 

ISO.

Jongschaap, R. E. E.; Corre, W. J.; Bindraban, P. S.; Brandenburg, W. A. (2007). "Claims and 

Facts on Jatropha curcas L.: Global Jatropha curcas Evaluation, Breeding and Propagation," 

Plant Research International, Report 158, October 2007.

Kathpal, A. K. (2008). "Use of Biodiesel as a Traction Fuel for Indian Railways - A Case Study," 

1st Workshop on Railways and Biofuel at UIC, Paris. http://www.uic.asso.fr/reunion.php/19822/

4_kathpal_biodiesel_roadmap_indian_railways.pps Accessed July 25, 2008.

Kheira, A.; Atta, N. (2008). "Response of Jatropha curcas L. to Water Deficit: Yield, Water Use 

Efficiency and Oilseed Characteristics." Biomass and Bioenergy (33:10); pp. 1343-1350.

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.05.015
93 

LANXESS. (2009). "Baynox - Further Information." http://www.baynox.com/bac/en/products/

baynox/further_information/ Accessed August 20, 2009. 

Lele, S. (2008a). “Jatropha Cultivation,” March 2008. http://www.svlele.com. Accessed June 19, 

2008. 

Lele, S. (2008d). "Biodiesel," March 2008. http://www.svlele.com Accessed June 19, 2008.

Lele, S. (2008c). "Project Report for 1,000 Liters per Day BioDiesel Plant." http://www

.svlele.com/biodiesel_1tpd.htm Accessed June 19, 2008. 

Lele, S. (2008b). "Project Report for Jatropha Plantation," Excel Workbook, March 2008. 

Leng, R.; Wang, C.; Zhang, C.; Dai, D.; Pu, G. (2008). “Life Cycle Inventory and Energy 

Analysis of Cassava-based Fuel Ethanol in China.” Journal of Cleaner Production (16:3); pp. 

374-384. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.12.003. 

Lloyd, S.; Ries, R. (2007). “Characterizing, Propagating, and Analyzing Uncertainty in LifeCycle Assessment: A Survey of Quantitative Approaches.” Journal of Industrial Ecology (11:1); 

pp. 161-179. doi: 10.1162/jiec.2007.1136 

Maps of India. (2009). "Distance Chart from Raipur to over Hundreds of Cities and Towns." 

http://www.mapsofindia.com/distances/raipur.html Accessed August 12, 2009. 

Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Ltd. Chennai. (2009a). "Performance Indicators." 

http://www.mtcbus.org/faq.asp Accessed August 26, 2009.

Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Ltd. Chennai. (2009b). "Services - Bus Types - Latest 

Info." http://www.mtcbus.org/faq.asp Accessed August 26, 2009. 

Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, Government of India. (2009). "National Policy on 

Biofuels.” http://www.mnre.gov.in/policy/biofuel-policy.pdf Accessed on May 5, 2010. 

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. (2006). "Review of Crude Oil 

Production During the Month of October 2005 and Cumulatively for the Period April - October 

2005 Vis-à-vis 2004." Annexure-I, Page 1. http://petroleum.nic.in/Monthly_Production/P_

Oct_05.pdf Accessed December 2, 2008.

Ministry of Railways, Government of India. (2008). “Indian Railways: Annual Statistical 

Statements: 2007-2008,” p. 153. http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/deptts/yearbook/ASS_07-

08.pdf Accessed November 23, 2009. 

Ministry of Railways, Government of India. (2003). “Indian Railways to Use Bio-diesel Fuels, 

Signs MOU with IOC for Production of Bio-Diesel.” Press release. February 12, 2003. 

http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/lyr2003/rfeb2003/12022003/r120220033.html Accessed 

September 6, 2008. 

Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport, and Highways (MSRTH), Government of India. (2009). 

“Road Transport Year Book 2006-07.” New Delhi, March 2009, http://www.morth.nic.in/
94 

writereaddata/sublink2images/RoadTransport2006_07_Book292768426.pdf Accessed October 

20, 2009. 

Ndong, R.; Montrejaud-Vignoles, M.; Saint Girons, O.; Gabrielles, B.; Pirot, R.: Domergue, M.; 

Sablayrolles, C. (2009). “Life Cycle Assessment of Biofuels from Jatropha curcas in West 

Africa: A Field Study.” GCB Bioenergy (2009:1); pp.197-210. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707 

.2009.01014.x. 

Nivitchanyong, S. (2007). "Zero Waste Agriculture for Jatropha Plantation." Presented at the 4th 

Biomass Asia Workshop, Shah Alam, Malaysia November 20-22, 2007. 

Padma, T.V. (2008). “India Approves Biofuel Rise,” September 17, 2008. http://www.scidev.net/

en/news/india-approves-biofuel-rise.html Accessed September 23, 2008. 

Pew Center on Global Climate Change. (2008). “Climate Change Mitigation Measures in India,” 

International Brief 2, September 2008. http://pewclimate.org/docUploads/India-FactSheet-09

-08.pdf Accessed December 1, 2008.

Planning Commission, Government of India. (2003). "Report of the Committee on Development 

of Bio-fuel," New Delhi, India April 13, 2003. 

Planning Commission, Government of India. (2007). “India Vision 2020: The Report plus 

Background Papers,” Report of the Committee on India Vision 2020, Planning Commission, 

Government of India, Chairman S.P. Gupta, New Delhi.

Prueksakorn K.; Gheewala, S. H. (2006). “Energy and Greenhouse Gas Implications of Biodiesel 

Production from Jatropha curcas L.,” in Proceedings of the Second Joint International 

Conference on Sustainable Energy and Environments. 

Prueksakorn, K.; Gheewala, S. H. (2008). "Full Chain Energy Analysis of Biodiesel from 

Jatropha curcas L. in Thailand." Environmental Science & Technology (42:9); pp. 3388-3393. 

doi: 10.1021/es7022237 

Puri, Suresh (IOC) (2009). Personal communication to Garvin Heath (NREL), August 19, 2009. 

Raipur Government, Districts of Chhattisgarh. (2009). "Tourism." http://raipur.nic.in/tourism

.htm Accessed August 12, 2009. 

Reinhardt, G.; Becker, K; Chaudhary, D. R.; Chikara, J.; von Falkenstein, E.; Francis, G.; 

Gärtner, S.; Gandhi, M. R.; Ghosh, A.; Ghosh, P.; Makkar, H.; Münch, J.; Patolia, J. S.; Reddy, 

M. P.; Rettenmaier, N.; Upadhyay, S. C. (2008). "Basic Data for Jatropha Production and Use," 

Updated Version, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH, Central 

Salt & Marine Chemicals Research Institute, Bhavnagar, University of Hohenheim Institute of 

Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics, June 2008. 

Reinhardt, G.; Gartner, S.; Rettenmaier, N.; Munch, J.; von Falkenstein, E. (2007). "Screening 

Life Cycle Assessment of Jatropha Biodiesel." Commissioned by Daimler AG, Stuttgart, 

Prepared by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH, December 

11, 2007. 
95

Renewable Energy U.K. (2008). "Jatropha for Biodiesel Figures: Look at the Financial Costs for 

Jatropha Growing for Biodiesel," November 2, 2007. http://www.reuk.co.uk/Jatropha-for

-Biodiesel-Figures.htm Accessed July 25, 2008.

Renewable Fuels Agency, U.K. (2009). “Carbon and Sustainability Reporting Within the 

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation: Technical Guidance Parts 1 and 2,” Version 2.0 March 

2009.

Republic Bag. (2008). http://republicbag.com/formulas.html Accessed July 29, 2008.

Sarin, Rakesh (IOC) (2008a). Personal communication (word-processed document) to Garvin 

Heath (NREL), May 14, 2008.

Sarin, Rakesh (IOC) (2008b). Personal communication to Garvin Heath (NREL), June 17, 2008.

Sarin, Rakesh (IOC) (2008c). Personal communication to Garvin Heath (NREL), July 15, 2008.

Sarin, Rakesh (IOC) (2008d). Personal communication to Garvin Heath (NREL), July 28, 2008.

Sarin, Rakesh (IOC) (2008e). Personal communication to Garvin Heath (NREL), November 11, 

2008.

Scientific Applications International Corporation. (2006). “Life Cycle Assessment: Principles 

and Practice.” Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2006. EPA/600/R06/060. Reston, VA: SAIC. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/lcaccess/pdfs/600r06060.pdf Accessed 

December 2, 2008.

Sheehan, J.; Camobreco, V.; Duffield, J.; Graboski, M.; Shapouri, H. (1998). "Life Cycle 

Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus." NREL/SR-580-24089. 

Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (May 1998).

Singh, A.; Gangopadhyay, S.; Nanda, P. K.; Bhattacharya, S.; Sharma, C.; Bhan, C. (2008). 

“Trends of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Road Transport Sector in India.” Science of the 

Total Environment (390:1); pp. 124-131. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.027.

Singh, S. K. (2008). “CO2 Emissions from Passenger Transport in India: 1950-51 to 2020-21.” 

Better Air Quality 2008 conference publication, Bangkok, Thailand. http://www.baq2008

.org/system/files/stream2_Singh+poster.pdf Accessed November 23, 2009.

Singh, S. K. (2005). “Review of Urban Transportation in India.” Journal of Public 

Transportation (8:1); pp. 79-97. http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT 8-1 Singh.pdf

Accessed October 20, 2009.

Skinner, I.; Hill, N.; Kollamthodi, S.; Mayhew, J.; Donnelly, B. (2007). "Railways and Biofuel," 

First International Union of Railways Report, July 2007.

Sreenivas, A.; Sant, G. (2008). “Unravelling Myths about Subsidies in Urban Transport: A Case 

Study of Pune.” Prayas Energy Group, August 2008. http://www.cseindia.org/campaign/apc/pdf/

urban_transport_subsidy_myths_093A01.pdf Accessed October 20, 2009.
96

SRS Engineering Corporation. (2009). "Methanol Recovery." http://www.srsbiodiesel.com/

MethanolRecovery.aspx Accessed August 19, 2009.

Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. (2008). “Ecoinvent Centre Portal: The Ecoinvent 

Database.” http://www.ecoinvent.org/ Accessed November 24, 2008.

TDS Chemical. (2009). "Cetane-707 (Cetane Improver)." http://www.tdschem.com/UploadFile/

Cetane-707 Overview.pdf Accessed August 20, 2009.

The Climate Registry. (2008). "General Reporting Protocol - Version 1.1," May 2008.

http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/GRP.pdf Accessed July 29, 2008

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, U.S. (2005). “Technology Options for the Near and 

Long Term: Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass” August 2005. http://www

.climatetechnology.gov/library/2005/tech-options/tor2005-236.pdf Accessed September 6, 2008.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. (2007a). “Country Analysis Brief – India,” Last 

updated January 2007. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/India/Full.html Accessed December 1, 

2008.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. (2007b). "Table: World Net Electricity 

Generation by Type, 2005." Posted September 17, 2007. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/

electricitygeneration.html Accessed June 19, 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. (2009). “Fast Facts - The U.S. Inventory of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory.” Washington D.C. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

emissions/downloads/2009GHGFastFacts.pdf Accessed January 12, 2010.

Van Gerpen, J. (2009). "National Biodiesel Education Program, Technical Questions: A Sample 

of Questions Directed to the University of Idaho Biodiesel Education Project."

Whitaker, M. (2007). “Life Cycle Assessment of Transit Systems in the U.S. and India: 

Implications for a Carbon-Constrained Future.” PhD diss, University of Colorado Denver, Civil 

Engineering, 2007.

Whitaker, M.; Heath, G. (2009). Life Cycle Assessment of the Use of Jatropha Biodiesel in 

Indian Locomotives. NREL/TP-6A2-44428. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory, March 2009. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/44428.pdf Accessed October 20, 

2009.

Wintek Corporation. (2009). "Methanol Recovery." http://www.wintek-corp.com/

biodiesel/methanol-recovery.html Accessed August 19, 2009.

World Port Source. (2008). http://worldportsource.com/ Accessed July 29, 2008.
97

Appendix: SimaPro Model and Base Case Model Parameter Values 

Appendix A contains tables detailing the contents of the custom modules developed to construct 

the SimaPro model and the base case model parameter values. These custom modules were 

introduced in Section 4. Tables A-1 and A-2 list all relevant parameters in the study along with 

their abbreviations, values, units, and descriptions to facilitate understanding of the custom 

modules. The parameters are listed in alphabetical order by abbreviation. Parameters assigned 

specific values are listed in Table A-1. Parameters with values that are calculated based on 

formulas calling other parameters listed in Table A-2. Tables A-3 through A-14 show how the 

custom modules are coded. Modules customized for Indian-specific diesel refining and 

distribution cannot be displayed in detail, as they closely resemble proprietary data in ecoinvent

2.0 modules.

Table A-1. Base case input parameters that have assigned values

Input Parameter 

Name

Value Description (Source)

annual_rain 1385 mm, average rainfall in Raipur province, Chhattisgarh, India, the 

plantation's assumed location according to IOC. Used to calculate 

parameter rainfall_def to evaluate amount of irrigation water needed for 

the site (Chhattisgarh Online 2008, p. 1)

bio_blend_elec 0.00086 kWh/kg, energy required to blend ethanol with gasoline, assuming similar 

requirement for blending biodiesel with diesel. Used as an 

Electricity/heat input in the "Blended Biodiesel, India, At Processing 

Facility" module (Leng et al. 2008, p. 381). Sensitivity could assume no 

electricity consumption if fuels are flash blended.

bio_elec_eff 0.25 assumed efficiency of converting solid biofuel to electricity (U.S. Climate 

Change Technology Program 2005)

bio_fuel_drop 0.08 8%, drop in fuel economy for B100 compared with regular diesel, 

proportional to biodiesel blend (Van Gerpen 2009)

bio_off_switch 1 Set to "1" for electricity, set to "0" for heat. Used in Jatropha Seeds 

Harvested from Plantation module to select whether the collected 

biomass (leaves, stems, fruit husks) is collected and converted to 

electricity or used to offset process heat. Electricity offset Indian 

Electricity Generated, heat offsets mixed chips from the forest burned in 

a small furnace (50 kW).

bio_plant_life 50 yrs, lifetime of biodiesel transesterification facility in ecoinvent database. 

Used to calculate parameter "bio_prod_life" for determining how much of 

a biodiesel plant infrastructure is apportioned to each tonne produced 

(Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories 2009)

bio_plant_prod 63 MT/day, daily production of biodiesel in ecoinvent database. Used to 

calculate parameter "bio_prod_life" for determining how much of a 

biodiesel plant infrastructure is apportioned to each tonne produced 

(Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories 2009)

biodiesel_blend 0.05 biodiesel/(biodiesel + diesel) for defining the blending ratio of the 

biodiesel mix. IOC recommended evaluating B5. B10, B20, and B100 are 

also evaluated in the sensitivity analysis. Also supported by blends 

tested in Indian Railways trials (Kathpal 2008; Skinner et al. 2007, p. 35)

biodiesel_dist 25 km, distance biodiesel must be transported from the production facility in 

Raipur to rail depots in Bhilai where blending occurs. Used in "Biodiesel 

Blending, India, At Processing Facility” to calculate transport distance for 

biodiesel (Raipur Government 2009, p. 1)
98

Input Parameter 

Name

Value Description (Source)

biodiesel_eff 0 fuel economy reduction of biodiesel blend compared with conventional 

diesel, "0" indicates no significant change in volumetric fuel consumption 

as indicated by Indian Railway studies finding negligible negative effects 

in volumetric fuel consumption for B5, B10, B20. Used in "Indian Rail 

Transport" and "Indian Road Transport" modules to determine fuel 

consumption of blended biodiesel relative to a diesel (Kathpal 2008; 

Skinner et al. 2007, p. 35). Potential sensitivity values of 0.01 and 0.02 

would represent a 1-2% decrease in fuel economy as indicated by Dunn 

(2003, p. 9) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008). Van 

Gerpen (2009, p. 3) estimates a fuel economy reduction of up to 8% 

(0.08) for B100, with reduction proportional with biodiesel blend percent 

for lower blends. Biodiesel_eff in the model scales proportionally with 

biodiesel blend so biodiesel_eff should generally be set to the maximum 

fuel economy reduction expected if B100 is used.

biostabilizer 0.0025 kg Biodiesel stabilizer/kg biodiesel (LANXESS 2009, p. 6). Biodiesel 

stabilizers mimic vitamin E and are added in a ratio of 0.1-0.5 volume %. 

Data on India-specific biodiesel stabilizers are not available.

bus_dies_cons 3.94 km/liter diesel, fleet average for the buses of the Metropolitan Transport 

Corporation (MTC), Chennai, India during 2007-2008 (Metropolitan 

Transport Corporation 2009a)

bus_weight 15 tonnes, according to Metropolitan Transport Corporation (2009b), the 

majority of MTC's fleet is comprised of Ashok Leyland buses. According 

to Whitaker (2007), a common Ashok Leyland bus is the Viking 222 with 

a gross vehicle weight (vehicle plus cargo and passengers) of 15,430 kg 

and passenger capacity of 48 (Table 2.11, p. 42). With an average 

occupancy of 81% (Metropolitan Transport Corporation 2009a), the 

author's estimate that the operational weight of the buses will average 

approximately 15 tonnes (rounded to the nearest tonne) for purposes of 

converting fuel consumption per vehicle kilometer to fuel consumption 

per gross tonne kilometer.

cal_val_bio 39500 kJ/kg, calorific value of biodiesel included to calculate parameter 

"cal_val_blend" that can be used to adjust result to per MJ of blended 

fuel (Sarin 2008a, p. 4)

cal_val_diesel 42000 kJ/kg, calorific value of diesel included to calculate parameter 

"cal_val_blend" that can be used to adjust result to per MJ of blended 

fuel (Sarin 2008a, p. 4)

cetane_enhancer 0.001 kg cetane enhancer/kg diesel fuel, modeled as generic inorganic 

chemical to substitute for actual 2-ethylhexyl nitrate production. Range 

listed as 0.00025-0.002 kg/kg (TDS Chemical 2009, p. 1)

CO2_bio 0 kg CO2/liter of B100 combusted. Emission factor taken from The Climate 

Registry (2008, p. 93, Table 13.1). Used to calculate parameter 

"CO2_biodiesel."

CO2_dies 2.68 kg CO2/liter of diesel combusted. Emission factor taken from The Climate 

Registry (2008, p. 93, Table 13.1). Used to calculate parameter 

"CO2_diesel."

crude_foreign 0.75 fraction of IOC crude oil from foreign sources (Middle East and Nigeria). 

Used to calculate parameters "crude_bombay", "crude_mid_east", and 

"crude_Nigeria" (Sarin 2008a)

crude_offshore 1 mass fraction of Indian domestic crude oil produced offshore. M. 

Whitaker assumption for base case scenario that all domestic oil is 

derived from the offshore field at Bombay High. The largest fraction of 

India's domestic oil production is produced at Bombay High according to 
99

Input Parameter 

Name

Value Description (Source)

the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (2006).

crude_oil_trans 600 km, approximate distance diesel travels via rail between Vizag refinery 

on the east coast of Andhra Pradesh and the oil depots in Bhilai near 

Raipur for fueling IR locomotives and trucks at the Bhilai depots (Maps of 

India 2009), distance from Raipur to Vishakhapatnam 

diesel_fuel_con 2.63 liters diesel/1000 gross tonne kilometers transported via locomotive for 

freight transport. Indian trains that run on broad gauge tracks are more 

fuel efficient than those that run on narrow gauge. Freight transport more

often requires and utilizes broad gauge track. 4.38 L/1,000 GTK used to 

model passenger transport fuel economy (this value was used in the 

initial report). Both data points are from Indian Railways (2008, p. 17). 

Used to calculate fuel consumption in Indian Freight Train module based 

on biofuel blend. Use "rail_switch" to shift analysis between freight and 

passenger modes.

diesel_fuel_cul 86 L/ha-yr, based on Reinhardt et al.'s "optimized" scenario for diesel fuel 

use on a plantation with tree density of 1,667 trees/hectare. Sensitivity 

values of 141 L/ha-yr for the "best" scenario and 55 L/ha-yr for the low 

production of "today's" conditions can be used. All data points from 

Reinhardt et al. (2008, Table 2-12). Used in Jatropha Seeds Harvest 

from Plantation Module.

elec_gen_coal 0.7 fraction of Indian electricity generated from coal. Estimate of actual 

generation of India electricity from coal-fired power plants, used to 

separate coal from gas in the larger "thermal generation" category. Used 

in "Indian Electricity Generated" module to develop an Indian-specific 

grid mix based on other electricity modules in the ecoinvent database 

(Indian Central Electric Authority 2008)

elec_gen_hydro 0.15 fraction of Indian electricity generated from hydro power. Used in "Indian 

Electricity Generated" module to develop an Indian-specific grid mix 

based on other electricity modules in the ecoinvent database (U.S. 

Energy Information Administration 2008)

elec_gen_ng 0.12 fraction of Indian electricity generated from natural gas. Gas generation 

assumed to equal the total thermal generation minus the estimated 

generation from coal. Used in "Indian Electricity Generated" module to 

develop an Indian-specific grid mix based on other electricity modules in 

the ecoinvent database (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2007b)

elec_gen_nuclea 0.02 fraction of Indian electricity generated from nuclear power. Used in 

"Indian Electricity Generated" module to develop an Indian-specific grid 

mix based on other electricity modules in the ecoinvent database (U.S. 

Energy Information Administration 2007b)

elec_gen_renew 0.01 fraction of Indian electricity generated from renewables. Includes 

geothermal, solar, wind, waste, and wood. Used in "Indian Electricity 

Generated" module to develop an Indian-specific grid mix based on other 

electricity modules in the ecoinvent database. Modeled as half solar, half 

wind using ecoinvent modules (U.S. Energy Information Administration 

2007b)

elec_TD_loss 0.32 fraction of Indian electricity generated that is lost due to transmission and 

distribution losses. Difference between energy input to distribution 

system and energy realized by customers (as a percentage) (Indian 

Central Electric Authority 2008, Table 1h)

fert_app_num 2 fertilizer applications per year, one each at the beginning and end of the 

rainy seasons. Used in Jatropha Seeds Harvested from Plantation 

module (Lele 2008a, p. 44)
100

Input Parameter 

Name

Value Description (Source)

fert_switch 1 "1" uses Reinhardt numbers for fertilizer requirements, "0" uses Lele/IOC 

numbers.

frac_met_irr 0.2 fraction of annual water requirement met by irrigation. Used to meet 

water requirements not met by rainfall. "1" would indicate that 100% of 

required water is met by irrigation.

frac_mid_east 1 assumed fraction of foreign crude oil arriving from Middle East. Foreign 

oil arrives primarily from the Middle East and Nigeria, fractions not 

specified (Bureau of Energy Efficiency, India 2008). Highest percentage 

comes from Middle East, therefore onshore drilling in Saudi Arabia is 

used to represent the foreign oil supplied to India in the base case in 

order to simplify the modeling (U.S. Energy Information Administration 

2007a)

frac_stem 0.67 mass fraction of Jatropha biomass comprised of stems. Based on 

approximate breakdown of dried plant biomass (Nivitchanyong 2007, 

slide 8)

furnace_eff 0.8 80% conversion efficiency from biomass heat content to heat for end use 

for the selected furnace in ecoinvent "Heat, mixed chips from forest, at 

furnace 50 kW CH/S" Same conversion efficiency assumed for furnace 

used in biomass heat-offset scenario.

glyc_yield 0.079 fraction yield of glycerine during Jatropha oil conversion to biodiesel 

(Lele 2008d

growing_weeks 30 weeks in the growing season including initial, development, flowering, 

and harvest phases (Kheira and Atta 2008, p. 5)

harvest_per_yr 1 assumes one harvest per year at given seed yield per hectare. 

Represents the number of times seeds can be harvested per year based 

on production of the Jatropha trees. Production is a function of rainfall, 

irrigation, soil conditions, climate, and fertilization. Used to help calculate 

total lifetime seed yield in the Jatropha plantation operation module 

(Sarin 2008a)

husk_energy_con 15.5 MJ/kg, Gross energy content of Jatropha seed husks (dry matter) 

(Reinhardt et al. 2008, Table 2-10)

irr_years 3 years, number of years irrigation is required. Sensitivity values of 0 years 

for no irrigation and 20 years for full life time irrigation can be used. Used 

in Jatropha Seeds Harvested from Plantation Module (Achten et al. 

2008, p. 4)

jatoil_extract 63 MT/day, daily production of extracted oil in ecoinvent database, Used to 

allocate infrastructure of oil extraction unit to each tonne of oil extracted, 

Used to calculate "jatoil_ext_life" parameter that represents to the total 

Jatropha oil extracted over the ecoinvent extraction plant life cycle 

(ecoinvent 2.0, Description of Module "Oil mill/CH/I S")

jatoil_life 50 yrs, lifetime of oil extraction facility in ecoinvent database. Used to 

allocate infrastructure of oil extraction unit to each tonne of oil extracted. 

Used to calculate jatoil_ext_life parameter that represents to the total 

Jatropha oil extracted over the ecoinvent extraction plant life cycle 

(ecoinvent 2.0, Description of Module "Oil mill/CH/I S")

jatropha_water 6 liters per week, average consumption of water by Jatropha during 

growing season (Kheira and Atta 2008, p. 5)

K2O_fert_req 89 kg/ha-yr, Reinhardt optimized scenario for fertilizer use on the plantation 

(tree density 1,667). Adjusted as need to tree density being modeled. 

Used in the Jatropha Seeds Harvested from Plantation module 

(Reinhardt et al. 2008, Table 2-12)
101

Input Parameter 

Name

Value Description (Source)

life_cycle_yr 20 yrs, defines the lifetime of the study being analyzed. Base case 

assumption of M. Whitaker. Used to calculate total Jatropha plantation 

output and total gross tonne kilometers transported on rail system. 

Sensitivity values of 5 years and 50 years can be used to check the 

impact of shorter and longer analysis lifetimes. 

loco_gtk 1E+08 gross tonne kilometers/locomotive–yr (based on IR averaging 480 billion 

GTK transported each year with 4800 locomotives) (Indian Railways 

2008, p. 17)

mat_KCL_app 80 grams KCl/tree/application for mature Jatropha plantation. Soil testing is 

required to determine actual soil nutrient requirements. These values are 

based on approximate fertilizer requirements assuming average soil 

conditions. Used in Plantation Operation module to define fertilizer 

requirement. Lele's numbers (Lele 2008a, p. 44). Sensitivity values of 

half and double the fertilizer requirement can be used to test impact of 

parameter.

mat_KNit_app 25 grams K Nitrate/tree/application for mature Jatropha plantation. Soil 

testing is required to determine actual soil nutrient requirements. These 

values are based on approximate fertilizer requirements assuming 

average soil conditions. Used in Plantation Operation module to define 

fertilizer requirement. Lele's numbers (Lele 2008a, p. 44). Sensitivity 

values of half and double the fertilizer requirement can be used to test 

impact of parameter.

mat_SSP_app 100 grams single super phosphate/tree/application for mature Jatropha 

plantation. Soil testing is required to determine actual soil nutrient 

requirements. These values are based on approximate fertilizer 

requirements assuming average soil conditions. Used in Plantation

Operation module to define fertilizer requirement. Lele's numbers (Lele 

2008a, p. 44). Sensitivity values of half and double the fertilizer 

requirement can be used to test impact of parameter.

mat_urea_app 150 grams urea/tree/application for mature Jatropha plantation. Soil testing is 

required to determine actual soil nutrient requirements. These values are 

based on approximate fertilizer requirements assuming average soil 

conditions. Used in Plantation Operation module to define fertilizer 

requirement. Lele's numbers (Lele 2008a, p. 44). Sensitivity values of 

half and double the fertilizer requirement can be used to test impact of 

parameter.

mature_biomass 8.5 kg biomass/tree. IOC supplied estimate of biomass from pruning of 

mature Jatropha trees (Sarin 2008d)

meth_recycle 0.5 Fraction of methanol that can be recycled during biodiesel production. 

Assumes that about half of methanol is consumed during biodiesel 

production process and that greater than 99.9% of non-consumed 

methanol can be technically recovered (SRS Engineering 2009, p. 1)

meth_switch 0 Switch used to select recycling scenario for methanol. Set to "1" to model 

methanol recycling, set to "0" to model biodiesel production without 

methanol recycling.

mode_switch 1 Parameter switches the modeling scenario between the road and rail 

sectors. Set to "1" for rail, set to "0" for road.

N_fert_req 81 kg/ha-yr, Reinhardt optimized scenario for fertilizer use on the plantation 

(tree density 1,667). Adjusted as need to tree density being modeled. 

Used in the Jatropha Seeds Harvested from Plantation module 

(Reinhardt et al. 2008, Table 2-12)
102

Input Parameter 

Name

Value Description (Source)

N2O_release 0.01 Fraction of nitrogen contained in fertilizer that is released to the air as 

N2O, fraction is on a mass basis (gN2O/gN in fertilizer). 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2006) estimate in Table 

11.1. For sensitivity, low end of IPCC range (0.003) can be used. For 

high end sensitivity, 0.04 can be used representing top down estimate of 

N2O release from newly fixed nitrogen by Crutzen et al. (2008) 

Represents midpoint of 3-5% (mass percent) range (Crutzen et al. 2008, 

p. 390)

oil_content 0.35 Percent oil content of seed, weight oil/weight total seed. Average oil 

content of dry seed on mass basis as identified by Achten et al. (2008). 

IOC notes that oil content of seeds increase until year 6 and then 

stabilize. Oil content of seeds identified as 35-40% by IOC. Indian 

Planning Commission assumes 35% in their calculations. Used to 

calculate oil recovery efficiency parameter (Achten et al. 2008, p. 7)

oil_domestic 3200 km, transport distance for domestic oil between Bombay High and 

VIZAG per sea route. Estimated distance between Bombay High 

offshore oil field and terminal at VIZAG. Used to calculate parameter 

"crude_ocean_trn" for impacts of transported crude oil to India in the 

Crude Oil India module (World Port Source Web site 2008)

oil_mid_east 7000 km, approximate distance traveled for transport of crude oil by tanker 

from Middle East to Vizag. Used to measure the total impact of ocean oil 

transport for India crude oil production (Distances.com 2008)

oil_Nigeria 14000 km, approximate distance traveled for transport of crude oil by tanker 

from Nigeria to Vizag (Distances.com 2008)

oil_yield_red 0 fractional parameter to reduce oil yield percentage from base case in 

sensitivity analyses. Set to "0" for no reduction, "0.2" would represent a 

20% reduction.

P2O5_fert_req 31 kg/ha-yr, Reinhardt optimized scenario for fertilizer use on the plantation 

(tree density 1,667). Adjusted as need to tree density being modeled. 

Used in the Jatropha Seeds Harvested from Plantation module 

(Reinhardt et al. 2008, Table 2-12)

plant_manure 4.5 kg manure/planting hole Lele estimate for manure required at original 

planting of tree. Used in Jatropha Planting Module (Lele 2008a, p. 39)

plant_MOP 16 grams of murate of potash (common name for KCl)/planting hole. IOC 

estimates of fertilizer requirements per planting hole, consistent with Lele 

estimates in literature with literature values. Used in Jatropha Planting 

Module (Lele 2008a, p. 39; Sarin 2008a)

plant_SSP 120 grams single super phosphate per planting hole. IOC estimates of 

fertilizer requirements per planting hole, consistent with Lele estimates in 

literature with literature values Used in Jatropha Planting Module (Lele 

2008a, p. 39; Sarin 2008a)

plant_urea 20 grams urea/planting hole (IOC estimate, comparable to Lele estimates). 

IOC estimates of fertilizer requirements per planting hole, consistent with 

Lele estimates in literature with literature values Used in Jatropha 

Planting Module (Lele 2008a, p. 39; Sarin 2008a)

plantation_elec 2431620 kWh electricity/yr required to operate a 10,000 hectare plantation. Total 

annual electricity requirement based on connected load and load factor 

(based on 300 work days per year, 3 shifts per day). Inclusion is 

considered conservative as may double count some fertilizing and 

irrigation distribution impacts (Lele 2008b, cell E431)

plantation_tot 50000 hectares, to be split into10,000 hectare units for management. 50,000 
103

Input Parameter 

Name

Value Description (Source)

hectares is the IOC estimated size of the proposed Jatropha plantation in 

the Raipur district of Chhattisgarh. Used in all of the plantation modules 

(Sarin 2008a)

poly_eth_bag 7 grams, weight of LLDPE bag for seedling cultivation. Unlikely to be 

significant, sensitivity optional. Used to calculate amount of LLDPE 

required as LLDPE case weight normalized to one bag and converted 

from pounds to grams (Republic Bag Web site 2008)

rail_pass_cons 4.38 liters diesel/1000 GTK of passenger-rail transport (Indian Railways 2008, 

p. 17)

rail_switch 1 Switch used to shift between analyzing freight transport and passenger 

transport in the rail sector. "1" analyzes freight transport, "0" analyzes 

passenger transport.

reinhardt_dens 1667 assumed trees/hectare for Reinhardt’s calculations. Used to scale 

Reinhardt's recommendations for fertilizer and diesel fuel to modeled 

plantation tree density (Reinhardt et al. 2008, Table 2-12)

required_rain 2500 mm/yr, amount of rain required to avoid irrigation. The correlation 

between rainfall and irrigation requirements is very poorly correlated in 

the Jatropha literature (Prueksakorn and Gheewala 2008, p. 2)

road_switch 1 Switch used to shift between analyzing freight transport (trucks) and 

passenger transport (buses) in the road sector. "1" analyzes trucks, "0" 

analyzes buses.

seed_cake_K 0.1 fraction potassium of fertilizer replaced by seed cake These ratios can be 

used to determine amount of chemical fertilizer offset if seed cake is 

returned to field as a fertilizer substitute. No sensitivity values for the 

fertilizer NPK ratio at this time. Used to determine avoided products in 

the Jatropha Oil Extraction module (Prueksakorn and Gheewala 2008, p. 

3389)

seed_cake_N 0.4 fraction Nitrogen of fertilizer replaced by seed cake These ratios can be 

used to determine amount of chemical fertilizer offset if seed cake is 

returned to field as a fertilizer substitute. No sensitivity values for the 

fertilizer NPK ratio at this time. Used to determine avoided products in 

the Jatropha Oil Extraction module (Prueksakorn and Gheewala 2008, p. 

3389)

seed_cake_P 0.2 fraction phosphorus of fertilizer replaced by seed cake. These ratios can 

be used to determine amount of chemical fertilizer offset if seed cake is 

returned to field as a fertilizer substitute. No sensitivity values for the 

fertilizer NPK ratio at this time. Used to determine avoided products in 

the Jatropha Oil Extraction module (Prueksakorn and Gheewala 2008, p. 

3389)

seed_cake_rep 0.15 kg of NPK (40:20:10) fertilizer replaced by 1 kg Jatropha seed cake. 

These ratios can be used to determine amount of chemical fertilizer 

offset if seed cake is returned to field as a fertilizer substitute. No 

sensitivity values for the fertilizer NPK ratio at this time. Used to 

determine avoided products in the Jatropha Oil Extraction module 

(Prueksakorn and Gheewala 2008, p. 3389)

seed_husk_yield 1429 kg sun dried husk/ha-yr. Reinhardt estimate at 9% water content, 

optimized scenario (Reinhardt et al. 2008, Table 2-2)

seed_survive 0.8 Fraction of planted seedlings that survive. Assumed survival rate of 

seedlings grown in nursery for 4-6 months and transplanted to plantation. 

Does not include potential for disease outbreaks. Used in calculating 

seedling requirement in the Jatropha Plantation, Planted, module (Lele 
104

Input Parameter 

Name

Value Description (Source)

2008a, p. 53; Renewable Energy U.K. 2007, p. 1)

seed_tran_dist 50 km, transport distance for Jatropha seeds, assumed distance between 

plantation and processing facility, seed transport via truck, IOC stated 

that plantation distance from processing in Raipur would be small. Used 

in Oil Extraction module to determine transport distance for seeds (Sarin 

2008c)

seed_yield_red 0 Fractional parameter to reduce seed yield per tree from base case in 

sensitivity analyses. Set to "0" for no reduction, "0.2" would represent a 

20% reduction.

seed_yield_tree 1.5 Kilograms dry seed/tree, assumed seed yield based on India Planning 

Commission (Planning Commission) estimates IPC assumption for 

calculation in report based on average conditions Used to determine 

seed yield in Plantation Operation module (Planning Commission 2003, 

p. 174)

solv_extract_n 0.91 Fraction, extraction efficiency for solvent extraction, weight oil 

extracted/weight oil available in seed, IPC assumption for calculation in 

report based on average conditions. Used to calculate parameter 

"oil_recov_eff" to determine amount of oil extracted from the oil content 

of the seeds (Planning Commission 2003, p. 174)

solvent_elec 55 kWh electricity/tonne of seed required for continuous solvent extraction, 

Data represent average operations of a continuous solvent extraction 

unit. Used in Jatropha Oil Extraction module (Adriaans 2006, p. 7, Table 

1)

solvent_hexane 4 kg hexane-n/tonne of seed required for continuous solvent extraction, 

Data represent average operations of a continuous solvent extraction 

unit. Used in Jatropha Oil Extraction module (Adriaans 2006, p. 7, Table 

1)

solvent_recycle 0.99 Mass fraction of hexane recycled during solvent extraction, Data 

represent average operations of a continuous solvent extraction unit. 

Used in Jatropha Oil Extraction module (Adriaans 2006, p. 7, Table 1)

solvent_steam 280 kg steam per tonne of seed required for continuous solvent extraction, 

Data represent average operations of a continuous solvent extraction 

unit. Used in Jatropha Oil Extraction module (Adriaans 2006, p. 7, Table 

1)

solvent_trans 0 ton-km transport for oil extracted at solvent extraction facility to reach 

biodiesel transesterification facility. Assumption is that the oil extraction 

and transesterification units are co-located, Assumption is that the oil 

extraction and transesterification units are co-located, Used in biodiesel 

production module (Sarin 2008c)

solvent_water 12 m^3 water/tonne of seed required for continuous solvent extraction 

(consumed and discharged to sewer), Data represent average 

operations of a continuous solvent extraction unit. Used in Jatropha Oil 

Extraction module (Adriaans 2006, p. 7, Table 1)

spec_ener_leaf 3624 kJ/kg, Gross specific energy content of Jatropha biomass (Nivitchanyong 

2007, slide 22)

spec_ener_stem 3932 kJ/kg, Gross specific energy content of Jatropha biomass (Nivitchanyong 

2007, slide 22)

spec_grav_biod 0.88 kg/L, Used to calculate fuel use requirements for the trains and perform 

volume/mass conversions (Planning Commission 2003, p. 77; Gubler 

2006, p. 205.0020E)
105

Input Parameter 

Name

Value Description (Source)

spec_grav_dies 0.84 kg/L, Used to calculate fuel use requirements for the trains and perform 

volume/mass conversions (Planning Commission 2003, p. 77; Gubler 

2006, p. 205.0020E)

transest_eff 0.95 conversion efficiency of Jatropha oil to biodiesel, Assumes 100,000 

tonnes/year plant capacity, Used in the Transesterification module 

(Planning Commission 2003, Table Annexure X)

transest_elect 38 kWh electricity required/tonne of biodiesel produced. Assumes 100,000 

tonnes/year plant capacity, Used in the Transesterification module. 

Includes electricity for glycerol purification (Planning Commission 2003; 

Lele 2008d)

transest_KOH 18 kg KOH required/tonne of biodiesel produced, Assumes 100,000 

tonnes/year plant capacity, Used in the Transesterification module 

(Planning Commission 2003, Table Annexure X)

transest_meth 110 kg methanol required/tonne of biodiesel produced, Assumes 100,000 

tonnes/year plant capacity, Used in the Transesterification module 

(Planning Commission 2003, Table Annexure X)

transest_minacd 6 kg mineral acid required/tonne of biodiesel produced (assume sulfuric 

acid as the base case), Assumes 100,000 tonnes/year plant capacity, 

Used in the Transesterification module (Planning Commission 2003, 

Table Annexure X)

transest_steam 851 kg steam required/tonne of biodiesel produced, Assumes 100,000 

tonnes/year plant capacity, Used in the Transesterification module, 

includes steam for glycerol purification (Planning Commission 2003; Lele 

2008d)

tree_density 2500 trees/hectare, initial plantation density of Jatropha trees, IPC assumption 

for calculation in report based on average conditions, Used to determine 

seed yield in Plantation Operation module (Planning Commission 2003, 

p. 174)

truck_long_fuel 12.8 Liters diesel consumed per 1,000 gross tonne kilometers transported at 

100% utilization (European Automobile Manufacturers Association 2009, 

p. 6)

truck_switch 1 Switches the modeled truck transport between long distance trucks (26-

60 tonne capacity) to urban distribution trucks (7.5-18 tonne capacity). 

"1" indicates long distance trucks, "0" indicates urban trucks

truck_urb_fuel 28.8 Liters diesel consumed per 1,000 gross tonne kilometers transported at 

100% utilization (European Automobile Manufacturers Association 2009, 

p. 6)

vizag_elec 31.91 kWh/tonne of crude oil processed, specific electricity consumption of the 

VIZAG refinery. Substituted for the electricity consumption in the Indian 

copy of the default ecoinvent Diesel at refinery module (Hindustan 

Petroleum Corporation Limited 2008)

vizag_therm 0.37 Million kcal/tonne of crude oil processed, specific thermal energy 

consumption for the VIZAG refinery. Used to define the amount of fuel oil 

burned in the Indian copy of the default ecoinvent Diesel, at refinery 

module (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited 2008)

water_req_met 1 Fraction of annual water requirement met. According to Kheira and Atta 

(2008), water requirement can be considered to be equal to the potential 

evapotranspiration (ETp). Water requirement is displayed with the 

calculated parameter "annual_jat_h2o" and is equal to 

"jatropha_water*growing_weeks."
106

Input Parameter 

Name

Value Description (Source)

yr_1_biomass 2.5 kg biomass/tree, IOC supplied estimate of first year biomass yield from 

pruning (Sarin 2008c)

yr_2_biomass 4.5 kg biomass/tree, IOC supplied estimate of second year biomass yield 

from pruning (Sarin 2008c)
107

Table A-2. Calculated input parameters that have values determined by formulas based on other 

parameters

Name Formula Description

annual_jat_h2o jatropha_water*growing_weeks* 

tree_density/1000

m^3 water/ha-yr, total water required by one 

hectare of the Jatropha plantation for a year; 

number can be substituted with potential 

evapotranspiration if known.

bio_blend_sg spec_grav_dies*(1-

biodiesel_blend)+ 

spec_grav_biod*biodiesel_blend

kg/liter, specific gravity of blended fuel

bio_fuel_con (1-biodiesel_eff* 

biodiesel_blend)*rail_fuel_con

Liters blended biodiesel/1000 gross tonne 

kilometers

bio_plant_piece 1/bio_prod_life Piece of a biodiesel transesterification plant 

allocated to each tonne of biodiesel produced 

based on ecoinvent numbers; this value is 

used to represent the infrastructure 

contribution of the transesterification facility in 

the Indian case study.

bio_prod_life bio_plant_life*bio_plant_prod*365 Lifetime biodiesel fuel production assumed in 

ecoinvent inventory calculation

bus_bio_cons (1-biodiesel_blend*biodiesel_eff) 

*bus_diesel*bio_blend_sg

kg biodiesel blend consumed/1000 gross 

tonne kilometer transported via bus

bus_diesel 1/(bus_dies_cons*bus_weight)* 

1000

Liters diesel consumed/1000 gross tonne 

kilometer transported via bus

cal_val_blend cal_val_bio*biodiesel_blend+

cal_val_diesel*(1-biodiesel_blend)

kJ/kg, calorific value of blended fuel delivered 

to vehicles

CO2_biodiesel CO2_bio/spec_grav_biod CO2 emissions for biodiesel on a kg CO2/kg 

biodiesel basis

CO2_diesel CO2_dies/spec_grav_dies CO2 emissions for diesel on a kg CO2/kg diesel 

basis

crude_bombay (1-crude_foreign)*crude_offshore fraction of total crude oil from domestic fields 

(Bombay High)

crude_mid_east crude_foreign*frac_mid_east fraction of total crude oil from Middle East

crude_Nigeria crude_foreign*(1-frac_mid_east) fraction of total crude oil from Nigeria

crude_ocean_trn crude_Nigeria*oil_Nigeria+crude_

mid_east*oil_mid_east+

crude_bombay*oil_domestic

t-km, tonne kilometer of oil tanker transport 

required to deliver 1 tonne of total crude oil to 

the Indian coastal oil terminal at 

Visakhapatnam

frac_leaf 1-frac_stem Mass fraction of biomass that is leaves

husk_tot_mass seed_husk_yield*plantation_tot*

harvest_per_yr*life_cycle_yr

kg seed husks over plantation lifetime

jatoil_ext_life jatoil_extract*jatoil_life*365 Lifetime oil extraction assumed in ecoinvent

inventory calculation

jatoil_plnt_pce 1/jatoil_ext_life Piece of a biodiesel transesterification plant 

allocated to each tonne of oil extracted based 

on ecoinvent numbers; this value is used to 

represent the infrastructure contribution of the 

solvent extraction facility in the Indian case 

study.

jatoil_required 1/transest_eff kg Jatropha oil required to produce 1 kg of 

biodiesel

life_biomass_el (life_biomass_en+life_husk_en)*

0.000278*bio_elec_eff

kWh electricity offset over lifetime (converted 

from kilojoules), includes combustion of 

plantation biomass gathered over lifetime of 
108

Name Formula Description

plantation including leaves, stems, fruit husks

life_biomass_en life_biomass_to*

(frac_stem*spec_ener_stem+

frac_leaf*spec_ener_leaf)/1000

MJ leaf and stem energy

life_biomass_pl yr_1_biomass+yr_2_biomass+

(mature_biomass*(life_cycle_yr2))

Total kg biomass/plant over plantation lifetime

life_biomass_to life_biomass_pl*tree_density*

plantation_tot

kg, total biomass produced on plantation over 

lifetime

life_husk_en husk_tot_mass*husk_energy_con MJ husk energy

loco_bio_fuel bio_fuel_con*bio_blend_sg kg biodiesel blend used/1000 gross tonne 

kilometer transported

loco_life_gtk loco_gtk*life_cycle_yr Lifetime gross tonne kilometer analyzed in the 

study

locomotive_CO2 CO2_diesel*

(1-biodiesel_blend)+ 

CO2_biodiesel*biodiesel_blend

(kg CO2/kg fuel) Adjusted CO2 emission factor 

for the locomotive based on the biodiesel 

blend being used

N2O_release_ioc N2O_release*

(1-fert_switch)*urea_tot_lele

kg N2O release under IOC fertilizer scenario

N2O_release_rei N2O_release*fert_switch*

(N_fert_req*plantation_tot*

life_cycle_yr)

kg N2O release in Reinhardt fertilizer scenario

N2O_volatized N2O_release_rei+

N2O_release_ioc

kg N2O volatized from N fertilizer over 

plantation lifetime

oil_recov_eff (1-oil_yield_red)*oil_content* 

solv_extract_n

Weight of oil that is available and 

recovered/total weight of seed

rail_fuel_con rail_switch*diesel_fuel_con+

(1-rail_switch)*rail_pass_cons

Liters diesel/1000 GTK of rail transport (freight 

or passenger depending on switch).

rainfall_def required_rain-annual_rain mm/yr, calculated rainfall deficit for 

determining irrigation requirements 

req_irrigation annual_jat_h2o*water_req_met*

frac_met_irr

m^3 irrigation water required per hectare-yr

road_life_gtk loco_life_gtk Lifetime gross tonne kilometer analyzed in this 

study, set to same as locomotive life GTK for 

comparison purposes

seed_yield_hect seed_yield_tree*tree_density Kilograms dry seed expected per hectare 

based on tree density and seed yield per tree

seedling_plant tree_density/seed_survive Total trees required to be planted to achieve 

desired mature tree density based on seedling 

survival rate

solvent_req (1-solvent_recycle)* 

solvent_hexane

kg hexane required to be replenished/kg seeds 

processed

truck_bio_cons (1-biodiesel_blend*biodiesel_eff)* 

truck_fuel_cons*bio_blend_sg

kg biodiesel blend consumed/1000 gross 

tonne kilometer transported via truck

truck_CO2 locomotive_CO2 kg CO2/kg fuel, assumes that CO2 emissions 

for biodiesel blends in trucks and rail will be 

the same. Methane and NOx emissions for rail 

and truck transport are not currently included.

truck_fuel_cons (truck_switch*truck_long_fuel+

(1-truck_switch)*truck_urb_fuel)

Liters diesel consumed/1000 gross tonne 

kilometer transported via truck

urea_tot_lele mat_urea_app*tree_density*

fert_app_num*life_cycle_yr*

plantation_tot/1000

kg urea as N required under Lele IOC fertilizer 

scenario
109

Table A-3. India Electricity Generation Custom Module

Module Flows* Input Value

or Variable

Units Comments

Products

Indian Electricity Generated 1 kWh

Avoided Products

Resources

Materials/Fuels

Electricity/heat

Electricity, hard coal, at power 

plant/UCTE S

elec_gen_coal kWh Fraction of a kWh generated by coal

Electricity, natural gas, at power 

plant/UCTE S

elec_gen_ng kWh Fraction of a kWh generated by 

natural gas

Electricity hydropower in UCPTE S elec_gen_hydro kWh Fraction of a kWh generated by hydro 

(based on European average)

Electricity, nuclear, at power 

plant/UCTE S

elec_gen_nuclea kWh Fraction of a kWh generated by 

nuclear power

Electricity, at wind power plant/RER S elec_gen_renew/2 kWh Fraction of a kWh generated by wind 

power (fraction of renewable energy 

by technology not specified, assuming 

50% of renewable wind, 50% solar)

Electricity, production mix 

photovoltaic, at plant/US S

elec_gen_renew/2 kWh Fraction of a kWh generated by 

photovoltaics (fraction of renewable 

energy by technology not specified, 

assuming 50% of renewable wind, 

50% solar) 

Emissions to air

Emissions to water

Emissions to soil

* Drawn from ecoinvent 2.0 or other custom modules
110

Table A-4. Indian Electricity Delivered Custom Module

Module Flows* Input Value

or Variable

Units Comments

Products

Indian Electricity Delivered 1 kWh

Avoided Products

Resources

Materials/Fuels

Electricity/heat

Indian Electricity Generated 1/(1-elec_TD_loss) kWh Amount of electricity required to be 

generated in order to deliver 1 kWh to the 

user on average

Infra electricity LV use UCPTE S 1 kWh Inclusion of impacts from transmission 

and distribution infrastructure for low 

voltage electricity delivery

Emissions to air

Emissions to water

Emissions to soil

* Drawn from ecoinvent 2.0 or other custom modules

Table A-5. Jatropha Seedling for Planting Custom Module

Module Flows* Input Value

or Variable

Units Comments

Products

Jatropha Seedling for Planting 1 p Seedling from nursery called by Jatropha 

planting module for the initial 

establishment of the plantation

Avoided Products

Resources

Materials/Fuels

Polyethylene, LLDPE, granulate, 

at plant/RER S

poly_eth_bag g Limited data are available on the energy 

and water requirements for growing 

Jatropha seedlings at a nursery. This 

parameter represents the polyethylene 

bag that is used to grow each seedling.

Electricity/heat

Emissions to air

Emissions to water

Emissions to soil

* Drawn from ecoinvent 2.0 or other custom modules
111

Table A-6. Jatropha Plantation, Planted, India Custom Module

Module Flows* Input Value

or Variable Units Comments

Products

Jatropha Plantation, 

Planted Ha, India

1 ha Jatropha Plantation, Planted Ha, India

Avoided Products

Resources

Materials/Fuels

Jatropha Seedling for 

Planting

seedling_plant p Number of seedlings planted is adjusted 

to account for the expected survival rate.

Urea, as N, at regional 

storehouse/RER U

seedling_plant*plant_urea/

2.17/1000

kg Urea required to plant one hectare; 

inputs per hole dividing by 2.17 because 

ecoinvent process produces 1kg N which 

requires 2.17 kg urea; assumes Urea 

with N content of 46%.

Potassium chloride, 

as K2O, at regional 

storehouse/RER U

seedling_plant*plant_MOP/

1.67/1000

kg murate of potash (which was specified by 

the IOC to provide K fertilizer) is the 

common name for potassium chloride; 

inputs per hole; dividing by 1.67 because 

ecoinvent process produces 1kg K2O, 

which requires 1.67 kg KCl. Assumes 

KCL with K2O content of 60%.

Single 

superphosphate, as 

P2O5, at regional 

storehouse/RER U

seedling_plant*plant_SSP/

4.76/1000

kg Single super phosphate required to plant 

one hectare; inputs per hole dividing by 

4.76 because ecoinvent process 

produces 1kg P2O5, which requires 4.76 

kg SSP. Assumes SSP with P2O5 content 

of 21%

Poultry manure, dried, 

at regional 

storehouse/CH U

seedling_plant*plant_manure kg Manure may be processed less than this 

module indicates in the Indian context.

Irrigating/ha/CH U 1 ha General module used to substitute for 

unknown irrigation water requirement of 

the newly planted field

Tillage, ploughing/CH 

U

1 ha Used to represent energy required to 

plough the field to clear prior to planting; 

individual holes dug and planted using 

manpower; fertilizer applied by hand to 

each hole in initial establishment

Electricity/heat

Emissions to air

Emissions to water

Emissions to soil

* Drawn from ecoinvent 2.0 or other custom modules
112

Table A-7. Jatropha Seeds Harvested from Plantation Custom Module

Module Flows* Input Value

or Variable Units Comments

Products

Jatropha Seeds 

Harvested from 

Plantation

(1-

seed_yield_red)*seed_yield

_hect*plantation_tot* 

harvest_per_yr* 

life_cycle_yr/1000

tonne Total seeds anticipated to be produced over 

the life cycle of the plantation

Avoided Products

Indian Electricity 

Generated

bio_off_switch*life_biomass

_el

kWh Used to model the offset scenario where 

Jatropha husks, leaves, and stems are 

burned and converted to electricity to offset 

Indian Electricity Generated

Heat, mixed chips from 

forest, at furnace 

50kW/CH S

(1-

bio_off_switch)*(life_biomas

s_en+ 

life_husk_en)*furnace_eff

MJ Used to model the offset scenario where 

Jatropha husks, leaves, and stems are 

burned for heat used to offset generic heat 

from a furnace run on mixed wood chips 

from a forest.

Resources

Land: Transformation, 

from traffic area, rail 

network

plantation_tot ha Transformation of land within Indian 

Railways rail network

Land: Occupation, 

permanent crop, fruit

plantation_tot*life_cycle_yr ha a Amount of land occupied by the Jatropha 

plantation times the number of years 

occupied

Materials/Fuels

Fertilizing, by 

broadcaster/CH S

plantation_tot*fert_app_num

* life_cycle_yr

ha Energy required to distribute fertilizer to 

entire plantation given number of times per 

year for entire life cycle

Irrigating/m3/CH S plantation_tot*irr_years* 

req_irrigation

m3 Energy required to distribute irrigation water 

to entire plantation given number of times 

per year for entire life cycle 

Jatropha Plantation, 

Planted Ha, India

plantation_tot ha Number of planted hectares required for the 

plantation

Urea, as N, at regional 

storehouse/RER S

fert_app_num/2*fert_switch*

(N_fert_req* 

plantation_tot*life_cycle_yr*t

ree_density/reinhardt_dens)

kg Reinhardt fertilization and plantation 

operation values

Potassium chloride, as 

K2O, at regional 

storehouse/RER S

fert_app_num/2*fert_switch*

(K2O_fert_req*

plantation_tot*life_cycle_yr*t

ree_density/reinhardt_dens)

kg Reinhardt fertilization and plantation 

operation values

Single 

superphosphate, as 

P2O5, at regional 

storehouse/RER S

fert_app_num/2*fert_switch*

(P2O5_fert_req* 

plantation_tot*life_cycle_yr*t

ree_density/reinhardt_dens)

kg Reinhardt fertilization and plantation 

operation values

Diesel, at regional 

storage/RER S

diesel_fuel_cul*tree_density

/reinhardt_dens* 

plantation_tot*life_cycle_yr*

spec_grav_dies

kg Reinhardt fertilization and plantation 

operation values

Indian Electricity 

Delivered

plantation_elec*life_cycle_yr

*plantation_tot/10000

kWh

Electricity/heat
113

Module Flows* Input Value

or Variable Units Comments

Emissions to air

Dinitrogen monoxide N2O_volatized kg

Emissions to water

Emissions to soil

* Drawn from ecoinvent 2.0 or other custom modules
114

Table A-8. Jatropha Oil, at Extraction Facility, India Custom Module

Module Flows* Input Value or Variable Units Comments

Products

Jatropha Oil oil_recov_eff tonne

Jatropha Seed Cake 1-oil_recov_eff tonne

Avoided Products

Urea, as N, at regional 

storehouse/RER S

(1-oil_recov_eff)* 

seed_cake_rep*seed_cake_N tonne

Avoided urea fertilizer production that is 

due to the generation and use of 

Jatropha seed cake

Single 

superphosphate, as 

P2O5, at regional 

storehouse/RER S

(1-oil_recov_eff)* 

seed_cake_rep*seed_cake_P tonne

Avoided single super phosphate 

production that is due to the generation 

and use of Jatropha seed cake

Potassium nitrate, as 

K2O, at regional 

storehouse/RER S

(1-oil_recov_eff)* 

seed_cake_rep*seed_cake_K tonne

Avoided potassium nitrate production that 

is due to the generation and use of 

Jatropha seed cake

Resources

Materials/Fuels

Jatropha Seeds 

Harvested from 

Plantation

1 tonne

Hexane, at plant/RER 

S solvent_hexane kg Assumes that 99% of hexane is recycled

Oil mill/CH/I S jatoil_plnt_pce*oil_recov_eff p

Fraction of oil extraction plant 

infrastructure allocated to Jatropha oil 

produced in this module

Tap water, at user/RER 

S solvent_water tonne

Water quality requirements not specified, 

assumes that tap water is adequate for 

this process

Operation, lorry 3.5-

16t, fleet average/RER 

S

seed_tran_dist/16 km

Base case assumes that the Jatropha oil 

extraction facility is located within 50 km 

of the plantation

Electricity/heat

Steam, for chemical 

processes, at 

plant/RER S

solvent_steam kg

Indian Electricity 

Delivered solvent_elec kWh

Emissions to air

Emissions to water

Emissions to soil

* Drawn from ecoinvent 2.0 or other custom modules
115

Table A-9. Biodiesel Production, Base-catalyzed Transesterification, India, at Plant Custom 

Module

Module Flows* Input Values

or Variable Units Comments

Products

Biodiesel 1 tonne Biodiesel output

Avoided Products

Glycerine, from 

epichlorohydrin, at 

plant/RER S

glyc_yield*jat

oil_required*0

.97

tonne Glycerine produced during process, assumed to offset traditional 

glycerine production using Western European technology; 0.97 

represents the assumed glycerol to glycerine conversion 

efficiency.

Resources

Materials/Fuels

Methanol, at plant/GLO 

S

transest_meth

*(1-

meth_switch)

+ 

transest_meth

*

(1-

meth_recycle)

* meth_switch

kg Methanol module does not include transport distance. While the 

Planning Commission of India (Planning Commission 2003), 

does not explicitly state if methanol recovery is used in their 

sample facility in Annexure X, the text throughout the document 

suggests that methanol recovery is a mandatory part of the 

process because methanol is used in excess during biodiesel 

transesterification and biodiesel with excessive methanol cannot 

meet ASTM standards for methanol content, flash point, or both. 

Annexure X also lists methanol "consumed" for an economic 

analysis as opposed to methanol "supplied." The use of 

"consumed" and the discussion in the text lead the authors to 

assume that methanol recovery is included in the analysis of the 

sample plant in Annexure X. SRS Engineering (2009) and 

Wintek Corporation (2009) also suggest that methanol recovery 

is critical to the economics of a biodiesel production facility.

Sulphuric acid, liquid, at 

plant/RER S

transest_mina

cd

kg Transportation distance for sulfuric acid is unknown. 

Composition of mineral acid required is unknown. Sulfuric acid is 

currently assumed in this analysis based on feedback from 

Indian Oil Corporation

Potassium hydroxide, at 

regional storage/RER S

transest_KOH kg Potassium hydroxide module includes transport distance

Jatropha Oil jatoil_required tonne Conversion efficiency of Jatropha oil to biodiesel is 

approximately 95%.

Vegetable oil 

esterification plant/CH/I 

S

bio_plant_pie

ce

p Fraction of biodiesel transesterification plant infrastructure 

impacts attributed to each tonne produced

Electricity/heat

Indian Electricity 

Delivered

transest_elect kWh Energy data are per tonne of biodiesel generated at a 100,000 

MT/year biodiesel facility.

Steam, for chemical 

processes, at plant/RER 

S

transest_stea

m

kg In absence of specific Indian steam data, generic steam 

production for use in chemical processes in Europe is used. 

Amount of steam is specific to the Indian transesterification 

plant.

Operation, lorry 3.5-16t, 

fleet average/RER S

solvent_trans*

jatoil_required

/16

km Transport parameter allows testing the impact of oil extraction 

and biodiesel transesterification facilities being in separate 

locations

Emissions to air

Emissions to water

Emissions to soil

* Drawn from ecoinvent 2.0 or other custom modules
116

Table A-10. Biodiesel Blending, India, at Processing Custom Module

Module Flows* Input Values

or Variable Units Comments

Products

Blended Fuel 1 tonne

Avoided Products

Resources

Materials/Fuels

Biodiesel biodiesel_blend tonne Biodiesel blend is a user-chosen 

parameter to test the impacts of 

different biodiesel blending scenarios. 

India has experimented with multiple 

field trials of B5, B10, and B20.

Diesel, at regional 

storage/RER U --> 

India

1-biodiesel_blend tonne The remainder of the fuel not 

comprised of biodiesel is conventional 

fossil diesel produced in the Indian 

context.

Operation, freight 

train/RER U

biodiesel_dist*biodiesel_ble

nd

tkm Rail transport is assumed for 

biodiesel from biodiesel 

transesterification plant to blending 

facility.

Chemicals organic, 

at plant/GLO U

biodiesel_blend*biostabilizer tonne Represents stabilizer added to 

biodiesel

Chemicals inorganic, 

at plant/GLO U

(1-biodiesel_blend)* 

cetane_enhancer

tonne Represents cetane enhancer added 

to diesel fuel

Electricity/heat

Indian Electricity 

Delivered

ceil(biodiesel_blend)* 

bio_blend_elec*1000

kWh Electricity required to blend diesel 

with biodiesel

Emissions to air

Emissions to water

Emissions to soil

* Drawn from ecoinvent 2.0 or other custom modules
117

Table A-11. Crude Oil at Indian Mix Custom Module

Module Flows* Input Values or Variable Units Comments

Products

Crude Oil, Indian Mix 1 tonne

Avoided Products

Resources

Materials/Fuels

Crude oil, at 

production/NG S

crude_Nigeria tonne Represents foreign oil extraction from 

the Niger delta of Nigeria; India's 

foreign oil primarily comes from the 

Middle East and Nigeria.

Crude oil, at production 

onshore/RME S

crude_mid_east tonne Represents foreign crude oil extraction 

from the Middle East; the largest 

percentage of India's foreign crude oil 

comes from Saudi Arabia.

Crude oil, at production 

offshore/GB S

crude_bombay tonne Domestic oil production is assumed to 

occur in India's largest oil field, 

Bombay High, and to be transported to 

VIZAG refinery terminal to be 

combined with the foreign crude via oil 

tanker

Electricity/heat

Emissions to air

Emissions to water

Emissions to soil

* Drawn from ecoinvent 2.0 or other custom modules

Table A-12. Crude Oil Delivered to Refinery via Ocean Tanker, India Custom Module

Module Flows* Input Values or Variable Units Comments

Products

Crude Oil at Indian 

Refinery 1 tonne

Avoided Products

Resources

Materials/Fuels

Crude Oil, Indian Mix 1 tonne

Operation, 

transoceanic 

tanker/OCE S

crude_ocean_trn tkm

Represents the weighted distance of 

transporting crude oil from Bombay 

and Saudi Arabia to the refinery at 

VIZAG via a transoceanic tanker.

Electricity/heat

Emissions to air

Emissions to water

Emissions to soil

* Drawn from ecoinvent 2.0 or other custom modules
118

Table A-13. Indian Rail Transport Custom Module

Module Flows* Input Values or Variable Units Comments

Products

Indian Rail Transport 1000 tkm

Avoided Products

Resources

Materials/Fuels

Blended Fuel loco_bio_fuel kg

Electricity/heat

Emissions to air

Carbon dioxide locomotive_CO2* 

loco_bio_fuel kg CO2 emissions from just the diesel 

portion of the blend 

Emissions to water

Emissions to soil

* Drawn from ecoinvent 2.0 or other custom modules

Table A-14. India Road Transport Custom Module

Module Flows* Input Values or Variable Units Comments

Products

Indian Road Transport 1000 tkm

Avoided Products

Resources

Materials/Fuels

Blended Fuel road_switch*truck_bio_cons+

(1-road_switch)*bus_bio_cons kg

Electricity/heat

Emissions to air

Carbon dioxide truck_CO2*(road_switch*truck_bio_cons+(1

-road_switch)*bus_bio_cons) kg

Road CO2 emissions 

(applicable for trucks or 

buses) per kg of fuel 

consumed based on 

biodiesel blend utilized

Emissions to water

* Drawn from ecoinvent 2.0 or other custom modules
F1147-E(10/2008)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

May 2010

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Life Cycle Assessment Comparing the Use of Jatropha Biodiesel in 

the Indian Road and Rail Sectors

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08-GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

M. Whitaker (Symbiotic Engineering)

Garvin Heath (NREL)

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-6A2-47462

5e. TASK NUMBER

BB07.9610

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-3393

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-6A2-47462

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This life cycle assessment of Jatropha biodiesel production and use evaluates the net greenhouse gas (GHG) emission (not 

considering land-use change), net energy value (NEV), and net petroleum consumption impacts of substituting Jatropha biodiesel 

for conventional petroleum diesel in India. Several blends of biodiesel with petroleum diesel are evaluated for the rail freight, rail 

passenger, road freight, and road-passenger transport sectors that currently rely heavily on petroleum diesel. For the base case, 

Jatropha cultivation, processing, and use conditions that were analyzed, the use of B20 results in a net reduction in GHG 

emissions and petroleum consumption of 14% and 17%, respectively, and a NEV increase of 58% compared with the use of 100% 

petroleum diesel. While the road-passenger transport sector provides the greatest sustainability benefits per 1000 gross tonne 

kilometers, the road freight sector eventually provides the greatest absolute benefits owing to substantially higher projected 

utilization by year 2020. Nevertheless, introduction of biodiesel to the rail sector might present the fewest logistic and capital 

expenditure challenges in the near term. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the sustainability benefits are maintained under

multiple plausible cultivation, processing, and distribution scenarios. However, the sustainability of any individual Jatropha 

plantation will depend on site-specific conditions.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

life cycle assessment; LCA; sensitivity analyses; sensitivity analysis; Jatropha; biodiesel; Jatropha biodiesel; petroleum diesel; 

Jatropha production; Jatropha cultivation; India; transportation; transport sectors; net greenhouse gas emissions; net energy value 

(NEV); net petroleum consumption

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18