April 2013 

GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil 

Production: Literature Review and 

Synthesis

Final Report

Prepared for 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mail Code: 6401A 

Washington, DC 20460 

Prepared by 

Sara Casey 

Viola Glenn 

Blaire Zachary 

Robert Beach 

RTI International 

3040 Cornwallis Road 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

RTI Project Number 0213244.001.002 

RTI Internat

GHG Assessments 

Production: Literat

U.S. En

O
iii 

CONTENTS 

Section Page 

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-12 Jatropha Production Characteristics .............................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Dry Seed Yield ..................................................................................................... 2-12.2 Oil Content of Seeds ............................................................................................ 2-32.3 Climate Conditions and Productivity ................................................................... 2-42.4 Inputs: Fertilizer ................................................................................................... 2-62.5 Inputs: Irrigation .................................................................................................. 2-92.6 Production Costs ................................................................................................ 2-102.7 Land Competition and Opportunity Costs ......................................................... 2-112.8 Seed Crushing, Oil Extraction, Pretreatment, and Processing ........................... 2-122.9 Co-products ...................................................................................................... 2-153

3 Net Effects on GHG Emissions .................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Carbon Storage..................................................................................................... 3-13.2 Energy Use ........................................................................................................... 3-13.3 Net Energy Ratio.................................................................................................. 3-23.4 LCA...................................................................................................................... 3-43.5 Emissions from Land Use Change ....................................................................... 3-9

4 References ..................................................................................................................... 4-1

iv 

LIST OF FIGU

Number 

2-1. Predicted Jatropha Productivity Based on Geo2-2. The By-products of Jatropha Oil Extraction a3-1. Direct Land Use Impacts on GHG Emissions 
v 

LIST OF TABLES 

Number Page 

1-1. Most Relevant Studies Regarding Jatropha Characteristics and Net GHG 

Emissions ...................................................................................................................... 1-2

2-1. Observed Yields over Time in Malaysia (metric tons per ha) ...................................... 2-12-2. Jatropha Seed Yields ..................................................................................................... 2-22-3. Oil Content of Jatropha Seeds....................................................................................... 2-42-4. Trabucco et al. (2010) Productivity of Jatropha by Climate Zone ............................... 2-52-5. NPK Fertilizer Application ........................................................................................... 2-82-6. Irrigation Requirements .............................................................................................. 2-102-7. Case Studies Assessing Land Types Converted to Jatropha ....................................... 2-112-8. Methods of Oil Extraction .......................................................................................... 2-122-9. Biodiesel Yields from Crude Jatropha Oil through Transesterification ..................... 2-132-10. Inputs for Biodiesel Production via Transesterification in India ............................ 2-15142-11. Inputs for Solvent Extraction of Crude Jatropha Oil from Dry Seeds ........................ 2-152-12. Nutrient Contents of Jatropha Seedcake and Husk ..................................................... 2-163-1. Energy Requirements for Jatropha Jet Fuel (SPK) ....................................................... 3-33-2. Net Energy Ratio (NER) of Jatropha ............................................................................ 3-43-3. Summary of LCA Studies ............................................................................................. 3-63-4. Summary of Direct Land Use Change Literature ....................................................... 3-10

1-1 

SECTION 

INTRODUCTI

As global interest in biofuels has increased in re

potential biofuels feedstock that would grow well on minputs and management. Jatropha plantations were supIndia and China having the largest efforts) and nongov

purposes of biofuels production, and large areas of land 

experience has shown that jatropha does indeed require 

fertilizer and irrigation in order to achieve high enough 

successes in rapidly expanding jatropha planting in Indgoals proved unattainable and farmers abandoned jatro2011). Research demonstrates that marginal lands typichighest yields come from more productive lands and mconsistent with historical experience with production oproduction is more likely to compete for land used to poriginally anticipated. 

One of the key reasons for recent interest in larg

potential reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) providfuels. However, the net effect on GHG emissions depeconsiderably across feedstocks. Thus, it is important to 

the use of alternative feedstocks for biofuels production of each feedstock. Although biofuels produced from ja

full impacts of jatropha production are still being meas

exploring the effects of expanded jatropha production, 

jatropha biofuels from “well to wheel” are still underwnot include direct or indirect land use change from jatro

often play an extremely important role in determining cbiofuels production from a given feedstock. Some rece

show that given certain scenario assumptions, such as csavannah, jatropha may not produce net reductions in Gjatropha planting depending on the land type converted Baka, 2010; Achten and Verchot, 2011; Skutsch et al., have also found that if jatropha is grown on grasslands
1-2 

forests, it can still produce net reductions in GHG emissions when land use change emissions are considered (Dehue and Hettinga, 2008; Bailis and Baka, 2010; Romijn, 2011). 

The remainder of this literature review and synthesis will summarize our technical 

findings on jatropha characteristics in a number of key areas, such as potential yields, oil content, optimal climate, and input use. In addition, we provide details from several LCAs that have explored the impacts of jatropha cultivation for biodiesel on net GHG emissions. Based on guidance provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), we assessed three primary research areas: (1) seed, oil, biodiesel, and coproduct yield; (2) climate and growing conditions; and (3) LCAs. Over 70 studies were reviewed to produce this report, but only those providing quantitative data relevant to the three topic areas listed above are included in this review. Table 1-1 provides a brief overview of these relevant studies that helped inform the contents of this literature review. Table 1-1. Most Relevant Studies Regarding Jatropha Characteristics and Net GHG 

Emissions 

Study Study Focus Study Area 

Marginal or Productive 

Lands 

Achten et al. (2012) Land use change Arid and semiarid Both Achten and Verchot (2011) LCA—land use included Ghana, Zambia, and 

Mexico 

Both 

Achten (2010) LCA—land use included India Marginal Achten et al. (2010c) Climate, breeding, and 

genetics 

Global Both 

Achten et al. (2008) Seed yield, oil production Nicaragua and Central 

America 

Both 

Almeida (2009) LCA Geographically 

independent 

Both 

Almeida et al. (2011) LCA Location independent BothAxelsson and Franzén (2010) 

Socio-economics India Both 

Bailis and Baka (2010) LCA—jet fuel, land use 

included 

Brazil Productive 

Bailis and McCarthy (2011) Land use change India and Brazil Productive 

Brittaine and Lutaladio (2010) 

Overview Global Both 

GEXSI (2008) Overview Global Both 

(continued) 

1-3 

Table 1-1. Most Relevant Studies Regarding Jatro

Emissions (continued) 

Study Study Focus 

Hou et al. (2011) LCA Joongschaap et al. (2007) Overview Kumar et al. (2012) LCA 

Maes et al. (2009) Climate M

Ndong et al. (2009) LCA Ivo

Pandey, Pragya, and Sahoo (2011) 

LCA 

Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2006) 

LCA 

Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2008) 

Net energy ratio (NER) 

Reinhardt et al. (2007) LCA Reinhardt et al. (2008) Yields, inputs, and byproducts 

Romijn (2011) Land use change CenSkutsch et al. (2011) Land use, socioeconomics Srivastava et al. (2011) Yield Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010) 

LCA—jet fuel 

Trabucco et al. (2010) Climate, yield 

Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) Economics SWhitaker and Heath (2009) LCA Whitaker and Heath (2010) LCA Wiskerke (2008) Economics ShXunmin et al. (2009) LCA 
2-1 

SECTION 2 

JATROPHA PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS 

In this section of the report, we focus on general characteristics of jatropha production 

that are important components of an LCA modeling study. 2.1 Dry Seed Yield 

The effectiveness of using jatropha for biodiesel largely depends on the yield obtained. 

Jatropha produces seeds that are then dried and pressed to extract oil. Jatropha trees do not produce optimal seed yields in their first few years of cultivation. Increases in yield can be measured up to the eighth year of cultivation (Achten et al., 2008), but most studies consider jatropha to be mature by the fourth or fifth year. Although wild jatropha can have a lifetime of 30 to 50 years (Achten et al., 2010c, 2008, Kalam et al., 2012), most analyses of jatropha plantations have assumed a lifetime of 20 years (Almeida, 2009; Reinhardt et al., 2008). The literature does not provide an explanation for the typical 20 year analysis lifespan nor does it address how seed yield may change after maturity with most authors assuming the yield achieved at maturity continues throughout the lifetime of the plantation. Table 2-1 reports jatropha seed yields, based on limited observed data from Malaysia, by plantation age as reported by Kalam et al. (2012). Table 2-1. Yields over Time in Malaysia (metric tons per ha) 

Year Range of Reported Yields Most Likely Average Yield 

1 0.25–1.25 0.5 2 1.0–2.5 1.5 3 2.0–5.0 3.0 4 5.0–6.25 5.0 5 6.25–7.5 6.5 

Source: Kalam, et al., (2012) 

Seed yield of jatropha is quite variable; the literature shows that a major factor affecting 

seed yield is the quality of the land where the crop is grown. Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) found in Southwest China that jatropha yield on barren land could produce seed yields from 1.7 tons per hectare per year (t/ha/yr) to 2.2 t/ha/yr, while jatropha on fertile lands had observed yields between 3.9 t/ha/yr and 7.5 t/ha/yr. Similarly, the literature review included in Achten (2010) found that semiarid areas and wastelands typically produce between 2 and 3 t/ha, whereas fertile 

2-2 

lands that receive adequate rainfall and optimal managt/ha/yr and up to 7.8 t/ha/yr. 

Very actively managed jatropha plantations are 

Kumar et al. (2012) observed different seed yield rangefed jatropha was found to have an average yield of 1.5 range from 2.5 to 12.5 t/ha/yr. The Kumar study used ajatropha plantations for its LCA. A biodiesel company 11t/ha/yr (Skutsch et al., 2011), and a low-scale, high-iyield of 11.3 t/ha/yr once the jatropha trees reach 5 yeasummarizes yields that were either observed in the fielet al. (2010) reviewed yields from 15 jatropha plantatiomature seed yield was 1.73 t/ha/yr; however, yields ranal. (2010) also found that under climate change projectdecrease by 11%. Because there is only a short time sethe values reported have high variability, many of the Lscenarios for jatropha yields to account for this variatioTable 2-2. Jatropha Seed Yields 

Study Location 

Observed o

Assumed 

Jongschaap et al. (2007) Global Observed Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) 

Southwest China Observed 

Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) 

Southwest China Observed 

Wiskerke (2008) Tanzania Observed Achten et al. (2008) Nicaragua Observed Whitaker and Heath (2009) 

India Assumed 

Almeida (2009) Geographically 

independent 

Assumed 

Lam et al. (2009) Malaysia Assumed Achten (2010) India Observed Bailis and Baka (2010) Brazil Assumed 
2-3 

Table 2-2. Jatropha Seed Yields (continued) 

Yield (t/ha/yr) 

Study Location 

Observed or 

Assumed 

Marginal or 

Productive Low High Averagea

Lapola et al. (2010b) Brazil Assumed Productive 3.70 Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010) 

Geographically 

independent 

Assumed Productive 1.00 5.00 2.50 

Trabucco et al. (2010) Central and South 

America, Africa, 

India, and Indonesia 

Observed Both 0.3 4 1.73 

Achten and Verchot (2011) 

Ghana, Zambia, & 

Mexico 

Observed Both 0.50 3.50 

Pandey et al. (2011) India Observed Productive 4.53 

Hou et al. (2011) China Observed Productive 1.50 5.00 Almeida et al. (2011) Mexico, Brazil, India, 

& Tanzania 

Observed Productive 4.30 

Skutsch et al. (2011) Mexico Assumed Productive 3.70 11.00 7.50 Romijn (2011) Central/Eastern 

Africa 

Assumed Both 1.00 

Axelsson and Franzén (2010) 

India Observed Productive 5.80 

Kumar et al. (2012)—rain-fed scenario 

India Observed Marginal 0.50 2.80 1.50 

Kumar et al. (2012)—irrigated scenario 

India Observed Productive 2.50 12.50 5.90 

Gmünder et al. (2012)—rain-fed scenarios 

India Observed Both 0.4 0.6 

Gmünder et al. (2012)—irrigated scenarios 

India Observed Both 2 2.6 

a Or the assumed average value of seed yield for the study. 2.2 Oil Content of Seeds 

The amount of oil that can be generated from jatropha also depends on the oil content of 

the seeds. The GEXSI (2008) report suggests that the oil content in jatropha seeds averages 30% to 35% globally. Literature studying jatropha plantations and assumptions made by LCAs are in general agreement with this assessment. Table 2-3 shows the oil content of jatropha seeds as observed in the literature. 

2-4 

Table 2-3. Oil Content of Jatropha Seeds 

Study Location 

Observed or 

Assumed 

Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) China Observed GEXSI (2008) Global Observed Whitaker and Heath (2009) India Assumed Brittaine (2010) Global Observed Achten (2010) Global Observed Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010) 

Global Assumed 

Srivastrava et al. (2011) India Observed Pandey et al. (2011) India Observed Hou et al. (2011) China Observed Kumar et al. (2012) India Observed 2.3 Climate Conditions and Productivity 

The climatic conditions where jatropha is grow

looking at naturally occurring nondomesticated jatroph(2009) found that 87% of jatropha grew in tropical savvery small number was found in semiarid climates, and in arid climates (Maes, 2009). These findings are in shhave been chosen for jatropha plantations; farmers havsemiarid lands, including Srivastava et al. (2011) and W

In a paramount study, Trabucco et al. (2010) us

using maximum-entropy (MaxEnt) techniques to predibased on environmental factors (see Table 2-4). SBM f(325 validated specimens collected from the World Biospecific locations (using existing geodatasets) in which then extrapolated to other regions with similar environmprobability of occurrence and expected yield. Jongschaexists between the latitudes of 30 degrees north and 35 predicted productivity map (see Figure 2-1), it can be a
2-5 

jatropha growth are India, Southeast Asia, equatorial Africa, and parts of Central and South America. Table 2-4. Trabucco et al. (2010) Productivity of Jatropha by Climate Zone 

Köppen Climate Zonea

Jatropha Average Productivity 

(kg dry seeds/ha/yr) 

Tropical humid climates 

Af (tropical wet—no dry season) 1,150 Am (tropical monsoonal—short dry season; heavy monsoonal rains in other months) 

2,200 

Aw (tropical savanna—winter dry season) 2,300 

Dry climates 

BSh (subtropical steppe—low-latitude) 750 

Subtropical temperate climates 

Cw (humid subtropical—dry winter) 1,950 Cf (humid subtropical/marine without dry season—hot or warm summers) 

1,550 

a Source for climate zones: Peel et al. (2007). Original classification has been modified to exclude frost risk 

conditions (minimum average temperature of the coldest month <8 ̊C). 

Figure 2-1. Predicted Jatropha Productivity Based on Geographic Location 

Source: Trabucco et al. (2010) 

Jatropha can grow in a variety of temperature ranges within limits. Stratton, Wong, and 

Hileman (2010) and many others have found jatropha to be frost intolerant. Frost can cause 

2-6 

immediate damage to the tree. Therefore, Trabucco et aminimum temperature of the coldest month in the year Fahrenheit (8 to 9 degrees Celsius). Maes (2009) found 95% grew in areas where the average temperature of thFahrenheit (10.5 degrees Celsius) or higher. The study growth was an area with a mean annual temperature beand 26.2 degrees Celsius). Terrain does not appear to bAchten et al. (2008) suggested that the slope of a jatrop30 degrees. In general, jatropha has been found to prefeaeration (Wahl et al., 2009) because the crop does not r(2008) also suggested soil depth should be at least 18 i

Jatropha has been shown to survive under low r

suitable for commercial biofuel production, areas of hiThe Maes (2009) study found that 95% of naturally occaverage annual rainfall above 37.2 inches (94.4 cm). Tjatropha growth was between 47.5and 78.8 inches (120Trabucco et al. (2010) found the optimal rainfall to be (2008) compared seed yields and annual precipitation athough there were cases of higher yields with low precprecipitation. This evidence supports the hypothesis thdo other factors. 2.4 Inputs: Fertilizer 

Several studies found that farmers had to active

use fertilizers, chemicals, and irrigation to obtain adequbecause jatropha has been found to remove nutrients frthose nutrients to the soil so jatropha can grow (Achtenstudies. The most popular fertilizer was a mix of nitrog

(K20), otherwise known as NPK. The reported use of fe

terms, shown in Table 2-5 for each study providing inf

Most studies found that fertilizer was required t

years. Several studies found that NPK could be replacejatropha had reached maturity. This NPK replacement 

section of the report. Ndong et al. (2009) found the firs
2-7 

application; in the fourth year NPK and ammo-nitrate were applied and by the fifth year jatropha by-products sufficed as fertilizer. Whitaker and Heath (2009) assumed (based on observations from jatropha plantations in India) that fertilizer application usually happens twice a year, once at the beginning and once at the end of the rainy season. Pandey et al. (2011) found that fertilizer was initially used every 6 months and once per year after the jatropha produced fruits based on observations in India. The Pandey study also used 0.04 pounds of diammonium phosphate (DAP) mixed with 0.45 pounds of cattle dung per plant. In Brazil, lime was also applied to the land in addition to NPK (Bailis and Baka, 2010). 

In economic studies, fertilizer was found to account for 23% to 31% of input costs 

(Axelsson and Franzén, 2010). In Tanzania, Wahl et al. (2009) found that fertilizer costs an average of 0.19 USD per acre per year when inorganic fertilizer was used and 0.15 USD per acre per year when organic fertilizer was used. 

2-8 

Table 2-5. NPK Fertilizer Application 

Study Location 

Observed or 

Assumed 

Marginal or 

Productive N 

Achten et al. (2008) 

West Africa Observed Both 12.8–30.6 

Reinhardt et al. (2008) 

India Observed Marginal 42.8 

Prueksakorn & Gheewala (2008) 

Thailand Observed Productive 

Almeida (2009) Global Both Both 66.9 2Whitaker and Heath (2009) 

India Assumed Productive 74.9 3

Bailis and Baka (2010) 

Brazil Observed Productive 74.9 3

Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010) 

Global Assumed Productive 0.034 0.

Pandey et al. (2011) 

India Observed Productive 50 million 

pounds of 

urea for total 

nursery stage) 

Hou et al. (2011) China Observed Productive 42.8 1Almeida et al. (2011) 

Global Assumed Both 1.46 0
2-9 

2.5 Inputs: Irrigation 

Water usage to grow jatropha has been higher than previously expected. Although 

jatropha can withstand droughts and potentially even produce better yields when drought occurs during its lifetime, irrigation may be necessary to achieve yields high enough for profitable biofuel production. Table 2-6 displays the water requirements found throughout the literature. In an economic study of jatropha plantations, irrigation accounted for 66% to 79% of all inputs for cultivation (Axelsson and Franzén, 2010). Wahl et al. (2009) found that the average annual cost for irrigating jatropha on fertile land in Tanzania was 6.07 USD per acre per year. 

The rate of irrigation varied among jatropha studies, but generally the literature shows 

that irrigation can have a large impact on yield. Achten et al. (2008) found that although yield varies significantly even in high precipitation or irrigation growing conditions, for plantations that receive less than 39 inches (100.0 cm) of water annually seed yield does not exceed 2.2 t/ha/yr. Several studies assumed that irrigation was only required for the first 3 years, including Whitaker and Heath (2009) and Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010). Ndong et al. (2009) found in West Africa irrigation was required at the beginning nursery stages at 0.05 gallons (0.2 liters) per plant per day; with 494.7 plants per acre (1,222 plants/ha) in the nursery stage, this amounts to 24.7 gallons per acre per day, or 9,028.9 gallons per acre per year if irrigation is conducted on a daily basis year-round. Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2006) found for jatropha plantations in Thailand on productive fertile land that 123,157 gallons of water were required per acre per year. On marginal land in India, Achten (2010) observed that irrigation was practiced only when the monsoon was late that year. When irrigation did occur, it was about 1,604 gallons per acre per year. On more productive land in India, irrigation was done 16 times for the initial 2 years and just twice a year for all following years. This equated to 4,009 gallons per acre where there were 1,012 jatropha plants per acre (2,500/ha) (Pandey et al., 2011). 

Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2008) found that 98 inches (250 cm) of rainfall per year 

were sufficient for jatropha to not require irrigation. For the NREL study of jatropha biofuel used in Indian trains, Whitaker and Heath (2009) assumed that the amount of irrigation required per year could be calculated by subtracting the actual average rainfall from the 98 inches (250 cm) estimated rainfall requirement. For the area that was being studied in India, the average annual rainfall was 54 inches (138.5 cm) per year, so it was estimated that the jatropha plantation would need 44 inches (111.5 cm) per year in irrigation. For establishing a geographically independent LCA for jatropha, Almeida et al. (2011) assumed that 148 gallons (0.56 m3) of irrigated water 

were required per 1 gallon of biodiesel that was produced. 

2-10 

Table 2-6. Irrigation Requirements 

Study Location 

Observed or 

Assumed 

Marginal 

Producti

Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2006) 

Thailand Observed Producti

Whitaker and Heath (2009) 

India Assumed Producti

Ndong et al. (2009) West Africa Observed Both Achten (2010) India Observed Margina

Pandey et al. (2011) India Observed Producti

Almeida et al. (2011) Global Assumed Both 

2.6 Production Costs 

All of these inputs (irrigation, fertilizer, and agr

production costs of using jatropha for biodiesel. A few production costs. When jatropha was grown on producproduction costs (including opportunity costs associate

estimated to be 95 USD per acre in the first year and 82 year five (Wahl et al., 2009). Several input costs were freached maturity because inputs for irrigation, fertilizeof the farmers surveyed in Tanzania considered jatrophactive management. These annual production costs comfound annual production costs in India to be about 81 Ucosts were 162 USD per acre per year. 

Another study of Tanzania jatropha on degrade

production costs to produce 1 pound of jatropha oil. Haproduction costs, while pressing and filtering accountefrom planting, weeding, manure application, and pruniconsistent with the range estimated by Weyerhaeuser e

1 Land opportunity cost was included as the average renting price 

USD). Family labor was valued at the average compensation ffor the opportunity cost of family labor. 
2-11 

to 0.66 USD per pound of jatropha oil. Much of the variation in the Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) estimates results from significant uncertainty regarding extractable oil content. 2.7 Land Competition and Opportunity Costs 

The viability of jatropha yields depends on the land use types that jatropha plantations 

take over. The impact on GHG emissions also depends largely on the previous land use type. In 2008, GEXSI’s global review of jatropha found that only 1.2% of areas planted with jatropha had replaced food production. As marginal lands have been found to provide low yields in many cases, anecdotal information suggests that jatropha production has been moving toward more fertile lands such as shrubland and agricultural land. However, our literature review did not find studies that specifically discussed significant replacement of other agricultural crops. Typically, the LCAs that have been developed to date focus on jatropha development on land that was not previously used for agricultural production and do not consider the displacement of existing crops. Literature that does assess displacement indicates that the type of crop displaced is highly contingent on individual context. In Bailis and Baka (2010), out of the 11 jatropha growers studied only 3 of the farmers had previously used the land for food production. The land displaced was 297 acres, and the displaced crops were manioc, maize, beans, and bananas. In West Africa, jatropha replaced old cotton fields because the price of cotton had dropped and jatropha cultivation became more attractive (Ndong et al., 2009). Evidence of jatropha directly replacing forested, crop, and fallow land is reported in the case studies reviewed by Achten and Verchot (2011), as shown in Table 2-7. Table 2-7. Case Studies Assessing Land Types Converted to Jatropha 

Case Study Woodland and Forest Crops Fallow 

Ghana 46% 23% (yam and others) 31% Yucatan, Mexico 100% Michocan, Mexico 25% 50% 25% Chiapas, Mexico 5% 66% (maize and others) 29% (pasture) Zambia 24% 61% 15% 

Source: Achten and Verchot (2011). 

Regardless of the exact land use type replaced, preliminary evidence indicates that the 

relatively high oil yield from jatropha seed will require conversion of less land to produce a given quantity of energy than would be required for most other biomass feedstocks. Lapola et al. (2010a) found that, when considering hectares of land converted alone, palm oil is the most efficient means to meet Brazil’s 2020 biofuel goals. Jatropha was the second most efficient crop 

2-12 

followed by rapeseed/sunflower and soybean. Research Malaysia confirmed palm oil’s superior oil efficiency, 

required to produce 1 ton of biodiesel from palm oil co

However, it should be noted that crops such as rapesee

amounts of edible meal which can be used as animal fe

2.8 Seed Crushing, Oil Extraction, Pretreatment

The first step in creating biodiesel from jatroph

jatropha seeds. There are three ways to perform oil extrscrew pressing, and solvent extraction using hexane. Tefficiencies, based on mass, of these three methods. Mfarmers and on a local scale; while mechanical pressing 

centralized processing center (hexane requirements for 

this section). Although manual pressing has a lower exthe transportation requirements for biodiesel processinprocessing requires more energy and thus higher GHG (Almeida, 2009). Table 2-8. Methods of Oil Extraction 

Extraction Method 

Manual ram press Mechanical screw press Solvent extraction (using hexane) 

Sources: Henning et al., (2000); Achten et al. (2008) 

Mechanical expeller, or screw press, inputs var

may be powered by diesel generators, connection to an press itself. They may also vary significantly in procesestimates for electricity use per ton of seed input range to 276 kWh1 (Beerens and van Eijck, 2010) per ton of j

(2008) mention extensively that the 6 kWh/t value prov

These oil extraction processes create crude jatro

acid (FFA) content (Akbar et al., 2009; Kywe and Oo, will perform pretreatment before the crude oil is conve

1 Report provides value of 0.3 kWh/L. Converted to kWh/t assum
2-13 

pretreatment is degumming where phosphorus content is depleted by heating the crude oil to 60° C and adding 0.01% phosphoric acid by weight of the oil followed by a second heating with the addition of 2% water (Humana, n.d.). Free-fatty acids (FFAs) are then neutralized with sodium hydroxide (approximately 0.22 grams per MJ of produced biodiesel) (Almeida et al., 2011). Another pretreatment option, proposed in Brazil, would use lye (NaOH) to lower the oil’s FFAs. This process is already common practice in the soy processing industry, but has not yet been tried in the jatropha industry. Bailis and Baka assumed this would require 12 kg (26 lb) NaOH per ton semi-refined jatropha oil (Bailis and Baka, 2010). 

Crude jatropha oil is thick and tough on diesel engines, and its direct use would require 

engine modification. However, crude jatropha oil can be converted to biodiesel (jatropha oil methyl ester (JME)) using the transesterification process where a catalyst is used to reduce the viscosity of the oil and make it compatible for use in diesel engines. Table 2-9 shows observed biodiesel conversion efficiencies, by mass, of jatropha oil transesterification as reflected in the literature. Conversion efficiencies are consistent across alternative plant-based feedstocks (e.g., soybean, palm, rapeseed, and sunflower) but vary based on the catalyst employed (Ong et al., 2011; Ngamprasertsith and Sawangkeaw, n.d.). Table 2-9. Biodiesel Yields from Crude Jatropha Oil through Transesterification 

Study Conversion Efficiency (%) 

Whitaker and Heath (2009) 95 Achten (2010) 97 Pandey et al. (2011) 95 

Table 2-10 summarizes the required inputs for biodiesel production from transesterification from an LCA of jatropha processing in India (Kumar et al., 2012). 

2-14 

Table 2-10. Inputs for Biodiesel Production via Tra

Input Q

Plant capacity (KTPA) Oil (kg/t biodiesel) Methanol (kg/t biodiesel) Sodium hydroxide (kg/t biodiesel) Electricity (MJ/t biodiesel) Steam (kg/t biodiesel) Circulated water (m3) 

Glycerin (kg/kg biodiesel) 

Note: Tons listed in this table are metric tons. KPTA stands for ki

Another type of oil processing used for jatropha 

commercial jet fuel, is hydroprocessing. According to Shydroprocessing is used to “deoxygenate the oil with shydrocarbons that fill the distillation range of jet fuel,” emissions of jatropha hydroprocessed esters and fatty a(2008) found that JME had slightly better reductions in were comparable. HEFA requires processing of crude jlocation that may not be as accessible to some jatropha of synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK), a type of hydrothat 0.48 lb of SPK and 0.39 lb of other biobased hydro(LPG), diesel, and naphtha) could be produced for each jatropha oil (Bailis and Baka, 2010). Table 2-11 shows oil extraction. 
2-15 

Table 2-11. Inputs for Solvent-Based Extraction of Crude Jatropha Oil from Dry Seeds 

Parameter Value Units Assumptions/Notes Source 

Extraction efficiency 91% Mass percent Percent of jatropha oil available in 

seeds extracted via solvent extraction 

Planning Commission of India (2003) 

Electricity use 55 kWh per ton 

of seed input 

Average electricity use for continuous solvent extraction per ton of jatropha seed input 

Adriaans (2006) 

Hexane use 4 kg per ton of 

seed input 

Average amount of hexane used in continuous solvent extraction; 99% is recycled 

Adriaans (2006); Sarin (2008) 

Steam use 280 kg per ton of 

seed input 

Average amount of steam required for continuous solvent extraction 

Adriaans (2006) 

Water use 12 m3 per ton 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 plant 

Sarin (2008) 

Table source: Whitaker and Heath (2009) 2.9 Co-products 

Jatropha can produce many different by-products. However, because of the toxicity of 

jatropha many of its by-products must be used carefully. By-products of other biofuel feedstock crops such as soybean are used for animal feeding. Meal created from jatropha by-products has a high protein content that makes it attractive as an animal feed (Devappa et al., 2010). However, this meal contains phorbol esters that have been shown to cause death and adverse health effects in some animals (Wang et al., 2011). These toxins cannot be removed by heat, but their concentration can be reduced using methanol sodium hydroxide, microbial fermentation, or an organic solvent treatment. In the Wang et al. (2011) study, the soybean meal used in feeding pigs was replaced with detoxified jatropha meal and no significant difference in health effects or nutritive value was found when compared with the soybean meal. Devappa et al. (2010) also found no adverse health effects in pigs, fish, or turkeys. These studies demonstrate the potential to use by-products of jatropha for animal feed, but it will require the process of detoxification, which is economically infeasible with current technology especially in the developing world where the majority of jatropha is harvested. 

The literature suggests that the most important and usable by-products of jatropha 

plantations are seedcake, fruit husks, and the biomass of the trees. Seedcake is formed by the 

2-16 

remains of seeds after they have been pressed for oil. Aoil extracted from dry seeds, 2.639 tons of seedcake waproperties, and in many studies it was able to replace thDevappa et al. (2010) found that the toxic phorbol estein a maximum of 9 days, making it a viable fertilizing emissions that come from fertilizer application. In the P1 pound of jatropha seedcake was assumed to equal 0.1also shown to have an N:P:K proportion of 40:20:10 (Wshows the fertilizing properties of jatropha by-productspackaged into pellets of briquettes and burned directly studies reviewed even used seedcake for biogas producpound of seedcake could produce 4.73 gallons of biogaTable 2-12. Nutrient Contents of Jatropha Seedcak

Seedcake 

Mass fraction of dry fruit (%) 29% Quantity produced per gigajoule SPK output (kg) 

58 kg 

Macro-nutrient contenta 

N 5.5% P 2.6% 

K 1.4% 

a In the far right column, P and K follow standard convention for 

P2O5 and K2O equivalents where %P2O5 = %P/0.436 and %K2O 

Source: Bailis and Baka (2010) 

Many of the LCAs also found value in the biom

cultivation and using the wood from the tree after the eproduction (often assumed to be 20 to 30 years). NREL that based on personal communication with the Indian of 2.5 kg/tree (5.5 lb/tree) in the first year, 4.5 kg/tree (average of 8.5 kg/tree (18.7 lb/tree)of biomass per matuincluded biomass and assumed it was burned for electrcreation and uses of jatropha by-products. 
2-17 

Figure 2-2. The By-products of Jatropha Oil Extraction and Their Uses 

Source: Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010) 

3-1 

SECTION 3 

NET EFFECTS ON GHG 

This section focuses primarily on the results pre

addressed GHG emissions from jatropha production, ininformation on specific components of net emissions a3.1 Carbon Storage 

The relatively long productive life of the perenn

carbon in the soil relative to an annual crop as well as sThis ability has led many to believe that jatropha cultivunder the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or o

Reinhardt et al. (2007) qualitatively discussed t

and carbon stock impacts. Only in areas with little to nexpected to positively affect carbon storage. When jatroutcomes are uncertain and likely reduce carbon stock. et al., 2008) assumed the average carbon stock for 3.5-et al. (2011) notes a rough estimate of CO2 fixed by jat

indicates future detailed research on this topic is forthcestimated the range of annual carbon sequestration basplantations in Egypt and India to be from 0.13 tC/ha/yr plantations were estimated to have a biomass carbon st10 tC/ha (optimal assumption where jatropha is grown year, assuming no pruning had taken place (Skutsch et Wani et al. (2012) found that jatropha increased the carsoils, potentially leading to increased carbon storage. 3.2 Energy Use 

To determine the full LCA GHG emissions, the 

from jatropha must be measured. When looking at the jatropha for biodiesel, transesterification accounted for cultivation only accounted for 12% in a study of jatropPrueksakorn and Gheewala (2006) studied a jatropha puse to be 0.03 MWh per gal of biodiesel produced. For

1 Converted from reported 5.5 t CO2.
3-2 

during transesterification, 23% was used for irrigation, and fertilizer accounted for 22% of total energy use. Transesterification requires more energy consumption because it uses methanol. 

A study of the first 5 years of a jatropha plantation in India was found to require 26 MWh 

(Pandey et al., 2011). The top three energy requirements for this plantation were seed processing, fertilizer application, and oil processing. Lele (2008) found that it required 12,000 MWh per year to operate a 123,553-acre jatropha plantation, or 0.1 MWh per acre. Kumar et al. (2012) found that 6.07 MWh were required to produce 1 ton of biodiesel under the irrigated scenario, while 7.7 MWh were required under the rain-fed scenario. For a geographically independent LCA, Almeida et al. (2011) assumed that 0.003 MWh of electricity were required to produce 1 gallon of biodiesel. This study also found that the energy required to produce biodiesel from jatropha used 88% less nonrenewable energy than a diesel fuel reference case. Whitaker and Heath (2010) found a less optimistic, but still positive, result when assessing the use of jatropha biodiesel to meet the renewable fuel goals for the road and rail sectors in India. Assuming the use of B20 (20% biodiesel) petroleum consumption from cultivation, processing, and use declined by 17% compared with the base case. Table 3-1 shows the exact energy requirements to convert jatropha into biodiesel jet fuel based on Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010). 3.3 Net Energy Ratio 

Another way to examine jatropha’s potential benefits as a biofuel feedstock is to look at 

its net energy ratio (NER). The NER looks at the ratio of how much energy is required to produce the fuel versus the amount of energy the fuel can produce. An NER greater than one indicates that the fuel produces more energy than is required to make the fuel. Values reported in the literature for jatropha NER are typically greater than one. Biodiesel from jatropha was shown to have a higher NER than regular diesel fuel but had a lower NER than other biofuels such as palm oil (Achten, 2010; Lam et al., 2009). In Lam et al. (2009), the palm biodiesel NER is slightly higher not because of large differences in the energy consumed during production but because of much higher oil production in palm. Several studies demonstrated that when coproducts such as biomass and seedcake were used for energy, the NER could be as high as 6.03 (Prueksakorn and Gheewala, 2008). Ndong et al. (2009) also calculated a high NER of 4.7 if jatropha by-products were included. Most of these studies looked at the capability of jatropha over 20 years, while the Pandey et al. (2011) study focused on just the first 5 years. Table 3-2 shows values for jatropha biodiesel NER found in the literature, not accounting for coproducts. 

3-3 

Table 3-1. Energy Requirements for Jatropha Jet 

 Lowa,b 

Receiving and Storage 

Electricity 33.5 

Jatropha Preparation 

Electricity (briquetting) 93.2 Electricity (decorticator) 23.2 Electricity (dehusking) 51.6 Electricity (cleaning) 3.0 Steam (cleaning) 125.9 

Oil Extraction (N-hexane extraction) 

Electricity 9.4 N-hexanec 77.3 

Meal Processing 

Electricity 38.1 Steam 368.7 

Oil Recovery 

Electricity 1.0 Steam 63.2 

Solvent Recovery 

Electricity 1.4 Steam 0.0 

Oil Degumming 

Electricity 4.4 Steam 49.7 

Waste Treatment 

Electricity 1.5 Steam 26.7 

Totals 

Electricity 260.3 

Natural Gasd 792.8 

N-hexanec 77.3 

a All values are in Btu per pound of oil. b The low emissions case appears to have higher process energy t

fraction of the seed weight going through the extraction process

production stage. 

c GREET uses Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) as a surrogate for d Steam is generated from natural gas with an efficiency of 80%. 

Source: Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010) 
3-4 

Table 3-2. Net Energy Ratio (NER) of Jatropha 

Study NER Without By-products 

Achten (2010) 1.35 Kumar et al. (2012)—rain fed scenario 1.40 Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2008) 1.42 Almeida (2009) 1.42 Kumar et al. (2012)—irrigated scenario 1.70 Pandey et al. (2011) 1.77 Reinhardt et al. (2008) 1.80 Whitaker and Heath (2009) 1.90 Lam et al. (2009) 1.92 

3.4 LCA 

LCAs of jatropha as a feedstock for biodiesel (and various other energy endpoints) have 

been conducted for countries and regions within Southeast Asia, China, West Africa, and South and Central America. The approach and results are relatively consistent and estimate major declines in GHG emissions and nonrenewable energy use (between 40 and 80%) coupled with potential negative environmental impacts (e.g., acidification, eutrophication, ecotoxicity). Table 3-3 summarizes the findings and assumptions of the 11 LCAs identified in this literature review. 

None of the LCAs in this section included estimates of GHG emissions from direct or 

indirect land use change. Recent research indicates that these emissions may have a profound effect on the GHG implications of bioenergy (Searchinger et al., 2008). Studies addressing this topic are discussed in detail below. Further, each of the LCAs identified relies on generic N2O 

emission factors calculated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Research has yet to be conducted on jatropha-specific emission factors. Additional research is also required on the viability of jatropha coproducts for crop fertilization in lieu of or in addition to chemical fertilization (Fan et al., 2012). 

Emission and energy use reductions are consistent across geographic regions and 

between the country-specific and geographically generic models. In most cases, where land use change is not included, fertilizer application and biodiesel production are the two largest contributors to biodiesel emissions, representing between 30% and 50% of total emissions. Although emissions from biodiesel production methods are fairly well quantified, significant uncertainty surrounds fertilizer emissions resulting from jatropha cultivation. Fertilizer is an 

3-5 

essential input for cultivation of most agricultural cropapplication are directly linked to the previous land use. as jatropha is already in agricultural production, signifiuse are unexpected. Conversion of fallow or pasture lanMany of the LCAs cited the emissions from using fertiGHG emissions. 
3-6 

Table 3-3. Summary of LCA Studies 

Study Geography Key Findings 

Fertilizer 

Emissions 

Previous Land 

Use Comments 

Kumar et al. (2012) 

India GHG declined 50% to 107% for irrigated 

scenario, 40% to 93% for rain fed 

Emission factor source not located 

Marginal lands with negligible vegetation 

Variation from assumed seed yield, inclusion of coproducts, and different displacement scenarios 

Achten (2010) India • Nonrenewable energy use declined 82% 

• Global warming potential (GWP) declined 

55% 

• Acidification potential increased 49% • Eutrophication potential increased 430% 

Emission factors from IPCC guidance 

Unproductive clay mines 

System includes cultivation, oil extraction, transesterification, transportation, infrastructure, and maintenance 

Whitaker and Heath (2010) 

India • GHG intensitya declined 3 to 72% 

• Crude oil displacement declined 4 and 

88%b

Emission factors from IPCC guidance 

No information Biodiesel for locomotives and road 

vehicles Variation from mix of biofuel (B5 to B100) 

Whitaker and Heath (2009) 

India • GHG intensity declined 3 to 62% 

• Crude oil displacement declined 4 and 86%

Emission factors from IPCC guidance 

No information Biodiesel for locomotives only 

Variation from mix of biofuel (B5 to B100) 

Hou et al. (2011) 

China • Nonrenewable energy use declined 82% 

• GWP declined 80% • Significant negative impacts to chemical 

oxidation, acidification, eutrophication 

Emission factors from IPCC guidance 

No information 

Xunmin et al. (2009) 

China GHGs declined by 49% Emission factor 

source not located 

No information 35% of emissions from fertilizer 

application 

Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2006) 

Thailand GHGs declined by 77% Emission factor 

source not located 

University research plots 

31% of emissions from fertilizer application, 26% from irrigation Crop grown annually and assumed yield 5t/ha of dry seed 

(continued) 

3-7 

Table 3-3. Summary of LCA Studies (continued)

Study Geography Key Findings 

Fer

Em

Ndong et al. (2009) 

Ivory Coastc GHGs declined by 72% Emissi

not spejatroph

Almeida et al. (2011) 

Generic including data from India, Mexico, Brazil, Tanzania, and Thailand 

• Nonrenewable energy use declined 78 to 

88% 

• GWP declined 51 to 54% • Acidification and eutrophication potential 

increased 8 times 

• Fossil fuel production required 4.4 less 

land 

Emissifrom IPguidan

Achten (2010) Generic 

including data from India, Mexico, Brazil, Tanzania, and India 

• Nonrenewable energy use declined 87% • GWP declined 45% • Acidification & eutrophication potential 

increased 8.5 times 

• Fossil fuel production required 4.4 less 

land 

Emissifrom IPguidan

Stratton et al. (2010) 

Generic but based on data from Indiad

GHG declined by 48 to 64% depending on seed yield assumptions 

Emissifrom IPguidan

a GHG intensity defined as GHG emissions per gross-ton-kilometer (GTK) and measures b Using same GTK criteria as GHG intensity. c Though significant data are collected from Mali. d From Reinhardt et al. (2008). 
3-8 

The LCA conducted by Kumar et al. (2012) specifically investigated the GHG 

implications of using jatropha coproducts to replace chemical fertilizer use on the same crops. The scenario including this assumption resulted in higher GHG reductions than any other scenario considered. Further research on the exact impacts of fertilizer use in jatropha cultivation is essential to fully understanding the GHG implications of its use. Our review of the literature also found that jatropha’s impact on GHG emissions can be reduced by using the biodiesel locally (thus reducing transportation), using seedcake for fertilizer, and using other by-products for biogas. 

The analysis conducted by Kumar et al. (2012) also highlighted the importance of 

allocating GHG emissions within LCAs. The authors evaluated three cases, allocating emissions by either mass, energy, or market value. Choice of allocation metric had a significant impact on final results, with market value allocation resulting in emissions reductions 10 to 20% less than those estimated in the mass and energy scenarios. Because of these potential differences, it is recommended that LCAs evaluate different allocation methods in each case to better understand sensitivity to this factor. 

Gmünder et al. (2010) performed an LCA of village electrification fueled by primary 

jatropha oil, rather than biodiesel, from shrubs grown in marginal soils along roadsides and hedges and found that GHG emissions were reduced by a factor of 6 compared with the diesel fuel and generator grid base cases, indicating that results of a similar caliber may be expected for other types of bioenergy production. 

A range of CO2 equivalent emissions per 1 gallon of biodiesel produced were found in 

the literature: 3,441 g CO2e in the Ndong et al. (2009) study of jatropha in West Africa and 5,789 

g CO2e when using jatropha for jet fuel (Stratton, Wong, and Hileman, 2010). Kumar et al. 

(2012) found that production of 1 ton of biodiesel under the irrigated scenario resulted in 1,334 kg of CO2 emissions, while the rain-fed scenario resulted in emissions of 1,768 kg of CO2 per 

ton of biodiesel produced. Although GHG emissions from jatropha are sensitive to yields, Almeida et al. (2011) found that when yield was varied, GHG emissions were still better under jatropha than conventional diesel as long as seed yields were better than 1 t/ha/yr, which even jatropha grown on marginal lands has been known to produce. Working in the People’s Republic of China, Xunmin et al. (2009) evaluated GHG reductions, compared with a fossil fuel base case, from biofuel from jatropha, corn, cassava, sweet sorghum, soybean, and used cooking oil and found jatropha produced the largest overall reductions. However, an LCA conducted by Lam et al. (2009), found that a palm oil-based biodiesel system is capable of sequestering 20 times more carbon than a jatropha-based system almost entirely due to faster biomass growth and carbon 

3-9 

assimilation in palm oil plantations. This analysis did nland use change. 

Other environmental factors besides GHG emis

determine the full environmental impact. LCA studies and Gmünder et al. (2012) found that jatropha increaseapplication of ammonia through fertilizer, and eutrophisurface waters due to soil erosion. Achten (2010) found reference diesel fuel system. Hou et al. (2011) even sugimpacts may negate the GHG emissions reductions fro

finds that jatropha led to increased ecotoxicity (linked 

establishment) and water depletion. These are concerns 

are not specific to jatropha. The impacts may be signifiexisting agricultural sites. In fact, on degraded agricultWani et al. (2012) found that jatropha increased the car

soils, potentially leading to increased water holding cap

3.5 Emissions from Land Use Change 

Although every LCA makes varying assumptio

total impact of jatropha biodiesel on the environment, tcurrent LCAs in the literature is typically in their accouindirect). Analyses including land use change consisten

resulting from land conversion prior to cultivation have whether bioenergy produced from jatropha results in a GHG emissions. Jatropha plantations established on defallows tend to reduce overall emissions, while establisproduce a carbon debt that may not be repaid for severdirect land use change (dLUC) literature covered in thi

where addressed, is included in the discussion of each 
3-10 

Table 3-4. Summary of Direct Land Use Change Literature 

Study Geography Carbon Stock/GHG Impact Displaced Land 

Bailis and McCarthy (2011) 

India, Brazil No difference in India 

10–20 year repayment period in Brazil 

Woodlands 

Dehue and Hettinga (2008) 

India Emissions declined by 66 to 68% 

total Inclusion of dLUC emissions reduced GHG-savings by 2.8 to 4.8% 

Grasslands 

Achten et al. (2012) Generic No difference Grasslands Bailis and Baka (2010) 

Brazil Emissions declined 83% compared 

with conventional jet fuel base case 

Agricultural 

 Emissions increased by 60% 

compared with conventional jet fuel base case 

Shrublands 

Romijn (2011) Central and 

Eastern Africa 

Payback period of 30+ years Miombo woodlands—pristine or 

degraded biomass or biomass 

 Immediate carbon benefit Miombo woodlands—degraded

soil carbon and biomass 

Achten and Verchot (2011) 

Ghana Repayment period of 71 to 129 

years 

46% woodland 

Michocan, Mexico 

Repayment period of 72 to 183 years 

25% secondary woodland 

Zambia Repayment period of 60 to 101 

years 

24% woodland 

Yucatan, Mexico 

Repayment period of 60 to 100 years 

100% secondary woodland 

Chiapas, Mexico 

Repayment period of 7 to 30 years 5% secondary woodland 

Bailis and McCarthy (2011) evaluated the carbon impacts of direct land change in 

semiarid woodlands in India and Brazil. Destructive sampling was used to compare aboveground and soil organic carbon in recently established jatropha plantations and adjacent natural systems (prosopis woodlands in India and caatinga woodlands in Brazil). Four years after the 

establishment of jatropha, the authors found no statistically significant change in either aboveground or soil carbon stocks in India but found substantial declines in aboveground carbon in Brazil, due almost entirely to differences in the carbon stock of the prosopis and caatinga woodlands. The analysis estimates that the carbon debt created from production in Brazil would 

3-11 

take 10 to 20 years to recover. In a similar case, rough average stock of carbon stored in jatropha per hectare win the grasslands that had previously covered the study jatropha canceled out the carbon losses of removing thfindings in India are supported by an LCA conducted b

found that total emission reductions declined by only 2conversion of grasslands to jatropha plantations were in

Achten et al. (2012) conducted a broader analys

change due to increased jatropha cultivation on global marginal lands, including sparse shrubs and herbaceou

benefit to GHG emissions. Jatropha established on prev

resulted in an immediate carbon debt of 24 to 28 tC/ha 

repay these debts, the jatropha must yield 3.5 to 3.9 t se

of seeds/ha/yr for forests. The literature currently refleccould be sustained at such a high level continuously fodebts is unlikely for previously forested land, but feasibUnpublished work from Shonnard et al. (2011) specific

jatropha seed yield and GHG emissions, finding increaproduced when jatropha seed yields decline. These inc

in fertilizer use, land cover, and transportation were ac

In tropical and subtropical settings, both Bailis 

demonstrated the importance of carbon stock change d

(2010) studied jatropha used to make biodiesel jet fuel in Brazil. When no land use change was included in the in 40 kg CO2e per GJ of fuel produced, which is 55% l

biodiesel produced). When direct land use change is coby jatropha has a large impact on the GHG emissions ofound that converting annual crop land to jatropha can can have life-cycle GHG emissions 83% less than CJFshrublands can make the jet fuel made from jatropha h(approximately 20.5 kg C02 per gallon of biodiesel pro

from the Bailis and Baka (2010) study. 
3-12 

Figure 3-1. Direct Land Use Impacts on GHG Emissions from Jatropha 

Source: Bailis and Baka, 2010 

Romijn (2011) focused on large-scale jatropha production that would replace miombo 

woodlands in Central and Eastern Africa. The original analysis, converting relatively pristine woodlands to jatropha, projected a substantial carbon stock debt with a payback period exceeding 30 years. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate GHG outcome sensitivity to degraded biomass and depleted soil carbon within the woodlands to be cleared for jatropha to mimic the use of previously degraded woodlands. Degraded biomass may result from illegal logging while depleted soil carbon is associated with woodlands formally in agricultural use and abandoned due to low soil fertility. Scenarios that included only the depletion of biomass (e.g., aboveground carbon) estimated a net increase in emissions. GHGs were reduced compared with a fossil fuels base case only in scenarios where soil carbon was significantly depleted before jatropha cultivation, suggesting that soil organic carbon may play a significant role in conversion of these particular forested lands. The author noted that this was a surprising finding which merits further investigation. 

Achten and Verchot (2011) evaluated five jatropha plantations within the tropics: one in 

Ghana, one in Zambia, and three in Mexico. This study looked at direct and indirect land use change and found jatropha had replaced everything from cropland to natural forests. For Zambia and Ghana, iLUC was estimated though household interviews with recent smallholder adopters. Estimates in Brazil were based on a global deterministic modeling study estimating generic 

3-13 

bioenergy iLUC factors derived from data for soybean sugarcane (Fritsche et al., 2010). The first case study eland for jatropha production. These carbon debts range

while the average was 102 Mg of CO2. Jatropha carbon 

estimated for oil palm production but higher than soybetype of land being converted and the expected seed proproduction replaced tropical rainforests, compared with tropical and nontropical forests, croplands, and fallow croplands and pasture. 

The study found that only one of the case studie

the end of the first jatropha rotation (20 years). It was eindirect land use that three of the case studies may take back the carbon debt. Average repayment times for jatr

The Mexico case studies from Achten and Verc

work in native growing acahual forests by Skutsch et a

jatropha gained back 2.83 tons of CO2 per acre per yea

former forest, the payback period ranged from 7.8 up to associated with the clearing of older (> 25 years) acahu

authors acknowledge, however, that carbon estimates acarbon stored in litter and woody debris. 

These studies suggest that jatropha’s sustainabi

land is chosen for its growth and what types of inputs apoint that jatropha, after further study, may not be the gmany expected it to be, but it could make sense in certalevel. 
4-1 

SECTION 4 

REFERENCES 

Achten, W. 2010. “Sustainability Evaluation of Biodiesel from Jatropha curcas L.: A Life Cycle 

Oriented Study.” PhD dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Groep Wetenschap & Technologie, Arenberg Doctoraatsschool, W. de Croylaan 6, 3001 Heverlee, België. 

Achten, W.M.J., J. Almeida, V. Fobelets, E. Bolle, E. Mathijs, V.P. Singh, D.N. Tewari, L.V. 

Verchot, and B. Muys. 2010a. “Life Cycle Assessment of Jatropha Biodiesel as Transportation Fuel in Rural India.” Applied Energy 87(12): 3652-3660. 

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.07.003. 

Achten, W.M.J., W.H. Maes, R. Aerts, L. Verchot, A. Trabucco, E. Mathijs, V.P. Singh, and B. 

Muys. 2010b. “Jatropha: From Global Hype to Local Opportunity.” Journal of Arid 

Environments 74(1):164-165. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.08.010.

Achten, W.M.J., L.R. Nielsen, R. Aerts, A.G. Lengkeek, E.D. Kjaer, A. Trabucco, J.K. Hansen, 

W.H. Maes, L. Graudal, F.K. Akinnifesi, and B. Muys. 2010c. “Towards Domestication of Jatropha Curcas.” Biofuels 1(1):91-107. doi:10.4155/bfs.09.4. 

Achten, W.M. J., A. Trabucco, W.H. Maes, L.V Verchot, R. Aerts, E. Mathijs, P. Vantomme, 

V.P. Singh, and B. Muys. 2012. “Global Greenhouse Gas Implications of Land Conversion to Biofuel Crop Cultivation in Arid and Semi-arid Lands–Lessons Learned from Jatropha.” Journal of Arid Environments (76):1-11. Available at: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.06.015. 

Achten, W.M. J., and L.V. Verchot. 2011. “Implications of Biodiesel-Induced Land-Use 

Changes for CO2 Emissions: Case Studies in Tropical America, Africa, and Southeast 

Asia.” Ecology and Society 16(4):14-51. doi:10.5751/ES-04403-160414. 

Achten, W.M.J., L. Verchot, Y.J. Franken, E. Mathijs, V.P. Singh, R. Aerts, and B. Muys. 2008. 

“Jatropha Bio-diesel Production and Use.” Biomass and Bioenergy 32(12):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. 

Akbar, E., Z. Yaakob, S.K. Kamarudin, M. Ismail, and J. Salimon. 2009. “Characteristic and 

Composition of Jatropha Curcas Oil Seed from Malaysia and its Potential as Biodiesel 

Feedstock Feedstock.” European Journal of Scientific Research 29(3): 396-403 

Almeida, J. 2009. “Generic Life Cycle Assessment of the Jatropha Biodiesel System.” PhD 

dissertation. 

4-2 

Almeida, J., W.M.J. Achten, M.P. Duarte, B. Mendes, 

Environmental Performance of the Jatropha BioCycle Assessment.” Environmental Science & T

doi:10.1021/es200257m. 

Axelsson, L. and M. Franzén. 2010. “Performance of J

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts.” Chalmers University of Technology. 

Bailis, R.E. and J.E. Baka. 2010. “Greenhouse Gas Em

Jatropha Curcas-Based Jet Fuel in Brazil.” Env44(22):8684-8691. doi:10.1021/es1019178. 

Bailis, R.E. and H. McCarthy. 2011. “Carbon Impacts 

Woodlands Converted to Biofuel Plantations in 

Biology Bioenergy 3:449-460. doi: 10.1111/j.17

Beerens, P. and J. van Eijck. 2010. “Oil Pressing and P

From Cultivation to Application. Eindhoven, T

http://www.snvworld.org/sites/www.snvworld.opha_handbook_2010.pdf. 

Brittaine, R., and N. Lutaladio. 2010. Jatropha: A Sma

for Pro-Poor Development. Integrated Crop Ma

Ceasar, S.A., and S. Ignacimuthu. 2011. “Applications 

Engineering for the Improvement of Jatropha a

Sustainable Energy Reviews 15(9):5176-5185. 

Dehue, B. and W. Hettinga. 2008. “GHG Performance 

Utrechy, The Netherlands. Available at: 

http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ghgperforma

Devappa, R.K, H.P.S. Makkar, and K. Becker. 2010. “

Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part B, 

doi:10.1080/10937404.2010.499736. 

Fan, J., R. M. Handler, D.R. Shonnard, and T.N. Kalne

Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Hydroprocessed International Journal of Environmental Science 

Fritsche, U. R., K. Henneberg, and K. Hünecke. 2010a

risks of GHG emissions from indirect land use Germany. Available at: http://www.oeko.de/oek

The Global Exchange for Social Investment (GEXSI). 

Final report. Available at: http://www.jatrophaalliance.org/fileadmin/documents/GEXSI_Glob
4-3 

Gmünder, M.S., R. Singh, S. Pfister, A. Adheloya, and R. Zah. 2012. “Environmental Impacts of 

Jatropha curcas Biodiesel in India.” Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology

(2012):1-10. doi:10.1155/2012/623070. 

Gmünder, M.S., R. Zah, S. Bhatacharjee, M. Classen, P. Mukherjee, and R. Widmer. 2010. “Life 

Cycle Assessment of Village Electrification based on Straight Jatropha Oil in Chhattisgarh, India.” Biomass and Bioenergy (34):347-355. 

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.11.006. 

Henning, R.K. 2000. “The Jatropha booklet—a guide to the Jatropha system and its 

dissemination in Zambia.” Weissensberg: bagani GbR.

Holl, M.A., M.B. Gush, J. Hallowes, and D.B. Versfeld. 2007. “Jatropha curcas in South Africa: 

An Assessment of it Water Use and Bio-Physical Potential.” Report to the Water Research Commission (WRC) on the project “Investigation into the Impacts of LargeScale Planting of Jatropha curcas on Water Resources, through Process-Based Research

and Modeling.” WRC Report No 1497/1/07. Gezina, South Africa. 

Hou, J., P. Zhang, X. Yuan, and Y. Zheng. 2011. “Life Cycle Assessment of Biodiesel from 

Soybean, Jatropha and Microalgae in China Conditions.” Renewable and Sustainable 

Energy Reviews 15(9):5081-5091. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.048. 

Humana People to People India. N.d. “Long term assessment of neutralized and degummed 

vegetable oil (at higher injection pressure) inconventional high speed diesel engine.” Submitted to The GAIA-Movement, Geneva, Switzerland. 

Jongschaap, R.E.E., W.J. Corré, P.S. Bindraban, and W.A. Brandenburg. 2007. Claims and 

Facts on Jatropha curcas L. Global Jatropha curcas Evaluation, Breeding and 

Propagation Programme. Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands. Report 158. Plant Research International B.V. Available at: http://www.factfuels.org/media_en/Claims_and_Facts_on_Jatropha_-WUR. Accessed on August 10, 2008. 

Kalam, M.A., J.U. Ahamed, and H.H. Masjuki. 2012. “Land Availability of Jatropha Production 

in Malaysia.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16(6):3999–4007. 

doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.025. 

Kant, P. and S. Wu. 2011. “The Extraordinary Collapse of Jatropha as a Global Biofuel.” 

Environmental Science & Technology 45(17):7114-7115. doi: 10.1021/es201943v. 

Kywe, T.T. and M.M. Oo. 2009. “Production of Biodiesel from Jatropha Oil (Jatropha curcas) 

in Pilot Plant.” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (26): 477-483. 

Kumar, S., J. Singh, S.M. Nanoti, and M.O. Garg. 2012. “A Comprehensive Life Cycle 

Assessment (LCA) of Jatropha Biodiesel Production in India.” Bioresource Technology 

110:723-729. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.142. 

4-4 

Lam, M.K., K.T. Lee, and A.R. Mohamed. 2009. “Life 

Biodiesel: A Case Study in Malaysia for Palm O

Bioproducts & Biorefining 3:601-612. doi:10.1

Lapola, D.M., R. Schaldach, J. Alcamo, A. Bondeau, J

2010a. “Indirect Land-use Changes Can OvercoBrazil.” Proceedings of the National Academy odoi:10.1073/pnas.0907318107. 

Lapola, D.M., R. Schaldach, J. Alcamo, A. Bondeau, J

2010b. “Supporting Information for Indirect La

Savings from Biofuels in Brazil.” Proceedings 

107(8). Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/02/

Lele, S. 2008. “Project Report for Jatropha Plantation.” 

http://www.svlele.com. 

Maes, W.H., A. Trabucco, W.M.J. Achten, and B. Muy

Jatropha curcas L.” Biomass and Bioenergy 33(

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.06.001. 

Ndong, R., M. Montrejaud-Vignoles, O. Saint Girons, 

and C. Sablayrolles. 2009. “Life Cycle Assessm

West Africa: A Field Study.” GCB Bioenergy 1

Ngamprasertsith, S. and R. Sawangkeaw. N.d. “Transe

In Biodiesel—Feedstocks and Processing Techn

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/23002/InTechTransesterification_in_supercritical_conditions

Ogunwole, J.O., D.R. Chaudary, A. Ghosh, C.K. Daud

“Contribution of Jatropha curcas to Soil Quality Entisol.” Acta Agriculurae Scandinavica: Secti

doi: 10.1080/09064710701628925 

Ong, H.C., T.M.I. Mahlia, H.H. Masjuki, and R.S. Nor

Jatropha curcas and Calophyllum inophyllum f

Sustainable Energy Reviews 8(15):3501-3515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.05.005. 

Pandey, K.K., N. Pragya, and P.K. Sahoo. 2011. “Life 

input Jatropha Biodiesel Production in India.” A

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.06.026. 

Planning Commission, Government of India. April 13, 

Development of Bio-fuel.” New Delhi, India. 
4-5 

Prueksakorn, K. and S.H. Gheewala. 2006. “Energy and Greenhouse Gas Implications of 

Biodiesel Production from Jatropha curcas L.” The 2nd Joint International Conference 

on “Sustainable Energy and Environment (SEE 2006). November 21–23, 2006. Bangkok, Thailand. 

Prueksakorn, K. and S.H. Gheewala. 2008. “Full Chain Energy Analysis of Biodiesel from 

Jatropha curcas L. in Thailand.” Environmental Science & Technology 42(9):3388-3393. 

doi:10.1021/es7022237. 

Reinhardt, G., S. Gartner, N. Rettenmaier, J. Munch, and E. von Falkenstein. 2007. “Screening 

Life Cycle Assessment of Jatropha Biodiesel.” Heidelberg, Germany: IFEU–Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH. 

Reinhardt, G., K. Becker, D.R. Chaudhary, J. Chikara, E. von Falkenstein, G. Francis, S.O. 

Gartner, MR.R. Gandhi, A. Ghosh, P.K. Ghosh, H.P.S. Makkar, J. Münch, J.S. Patolia, M.P. Reddy, N. Rettenmaier, S.C. Upadhyay. 2008. “Basic Data for Jatropha Production and Use.” Heidelberg, Germany: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH. 

Rettenmaier, N., S. Koppen, S. Gartner, and G. Reinhardt. 2008. “Screening Life Cycle 

Assessment of Hydrotreated Jatropha Oil.” Heidelberg, Germany: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH. 

Rijssenbeek, W. July 12, 2007. Report: Expert Meeting Jatropha, Brussels. Brussels, Belgium: 

European Commission Research Directorate-General Directorate E–Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. 

Romijn, H.A. 2011. “Land Clearing and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Jatropha Biofuels in 

African Miombo Woodlands.” Energy Policy 39:5751-5762. 

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.041. 

Sarin, R. (IOC). July 15, 2008. Personal communication with Garvin Heath (NREL). Searchinger, T.D., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Alobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. 

Hayes, Y. Yu. 2008. “Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error.” Science

326(5952):527-528. doi:10.1126/science.1178797. 

Shonnard, D.R., and R.P. Donovan. 2011. “Life Cycle Assessments of Hydro-Renewable Jet and 

Diesel from Jatropha Grown in Mexico.” Report to KUOSol, Mexico City, Mexico. 

Skutsch, M., E. de los Rios, S. Solis, E. Riegelhaupt, D. Hinojosa, S. Gerfert, Y. Gao, and O. 

Masera. 2011. “Jatropha in Mexico: Environmental and Social Impacts of an Incipient Biofuel Program.” Ecology and Society 16(4):11. doi:10.5751/ES-04448-160411. 

Srivastava, P., S.K. Behera, J. Gupta, S. Jamil, N. Singh, and Y.K. Sharma. 2011. “Growth 

Performance, Variability in Yield Traits and Oil Content of Selected Accessions of Jatropha curcas L. Growing in a Large Scale Plantation Site.” Biomass and Bioenergy 35 

(9):3936-3942. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.008. 

4-6 

Stratton, R.W., H.M. Wong, and J.I. Hileman. 2010. “L

from Alternative Jet Fuels.” Partnership for Air Reduction Project 28. Cambridge, MA: Massac

Trabucco, A., W.M.J. Achten, C. Bowe, R. Aerts, J. V

2010. “Global Mapping of Jatropha Curcas YiePresent and Future Climate.” GCB Bioenergy 2

1707.2010.01049.x. 

Wahl, N., R. Jamnadass, H. Baur, C. Munster, M. Iiyam

Jatropha curcas L. Plantations in Northern Tan

Cost-Benefit Analysis.” ICRAF Working Paper Nairobi. 

Wang, H., Y. Chen, Y. Zhao, H. Liu, J. Liu, H.P.S. Ma

Replacing Soybean Meal by Detoxified Jatroph

Growing Pigs on Their Growth, Serum Biochem

Animal Feed Science and Technology 170(1-2)doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.08.004. 

Wani, S.P., G. Cander, K.L. Sahrawat, S. Rao, G. Ragh

“Carbon Sequestration and Land Rehabilitation 

in Degraded Lands.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.07.028. 

Weyerhaeuser, H, T. Tennigkeit, S. Yufang, and F. Ka

of the Opportunities and Challenges of Jatroph

Working Paper Number 53, ICRAF China, Beij

Whitaker, M. and G. Heath. 2010. Life Cycle Assessme

Biodiesel in the Indian Road and Rail Sectors. N(NREL) Technical Report NREL/TP-6A2-4746

Whitaker, M. and G. Heath. 2009. Life Cycle Assessme

Indian Locomotives. National Renewable Energ

NREL/TP-6A2-44428. 

Wiskerke, W. 2008. “Towards a Sustainable Biomass E

Semi-arid Shinyanga, Tanzania.” Utrecht Unive

and Society. 

Xunmin, O., Z. Xiliang, C. Siyan, and G. Gingfang. 20

Emissions of Six Biofuel Pathways by LCA in Applied Energy 86:S197-S208. doi:10.1016/j.ap