April 2013GHG Assessments of Jatropha OilProduction: Literature Review andSynthesisFinal ReportPrepared forU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Transportation and Air QualityAriel Rios Building1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWMail Code: 6401AWashington, DC 20460Prepared bySara CaseyViola GlennBlaire ZacharyRobert BeachRTI International3040 Cornwallis RoadResearch Triangle Park, NC 27709RTI Project Number 0213244.001.002_________________________________RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.RTI Project Number0213244.001.002GHG Assessments of Jatropha OilProduction: Literature Review andSynthesisFinal ReportApril 2013Prepared forU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Transportation and Air QualityAriel Rios Building1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWMail Code: 6401AWashington, DC 20460Prepared bySara CaseyViola GlennBlaire ZacharyRobert BeachRTI International3040 Cornwallis RoadResearch Triangle Park, NC 27709iiiCONTENTSSectionPage1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-12 Jatropha Production Characteristics .............................................................................. 2-12.1Dry Seed Yield ..................................................................................................... 2-12.2Oil Content of Seeds ............................................................................................ 2-32.3Climate Conditions and Productivity ................................................................... 2-42.4Inputs: Fertilizer ................................................................................................... 2-62.5Inputs: Irrigation .................................................................................................. 2-92.6Production Costs ................................................................................................ 2-102.7Land Competition and Opportunity Costs ......................................................... 2-112.8Seed Crushing, Oil Extraction, Pretreatment, and Processing ........................... 2-122.9Co-products ...................................................................................................... 2-1533 Net Effects on GHG Emissions .................................................................................... 3-13.1Carbon Storage..................................................................................................... 3-13.2Energy Use ........................................................................................................... 3-13.3Net Energy Ratio.................................................................................................. 3-23.4LCA...................................................................................................................... 3-43.5Emissions from Land Use Change .......................................................................3-94 References ..................................................................................................................... 4-1ivLIST OF FIGURESNumberPage2-1.Predicted Jatropha Productivity Based on GeographicLocation ................................. 2-52-2.The By-products of Jatropha Oil Extraction and Their Uses ...................................... 2-173-1.Direct Land Use Impacts on GHG Emissions from Jatropha ..................................... 3-12vLIST OF TABLESNumberPage1-1.Most Relevant Studies Regarding Jatropha Characteristics and Net GHGEmissions ...................................................................................................................... 1-22-1.Observed Yields over Time in Malaysia (metric tonsper 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 byClimate 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 Oilfrom 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 ....................................................... 3-101-1SECTION 1INTRODUCTIONAs global interest in biofuels has increased in recent years, jatropha was touted as apotential biofuels feedstock that would grow well on marginal lands, requiring only low levels ofinputs and management. Jatropha plantations were supported by multiple governments (withIndia and China having the largest efforts) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for thepurposes of biofuels production, and large areas ofland were planted to jatropha. However, fieldexperience has shown that jatropha does indeed require active management and inputs such asfertilizer and irrigation in order to achieve highenough yields to be profitable. The initialsuccesses in rapidly expanding jatropha planting inIndia and China quickly reversed when yieldgoals proved unattainable and farmers abandoned jatropha projects en masse (Kant and Wu,2011). Research demonstrates that marginal lands typically produce poor yields and that thehighest yields come from more productive lands andmore intensive production practices. This isconsistent with historical experience with production of other crops but means that jatrophaproduction is more likely to compete for land usedto produce alternative crops than wasoriginally anticipated.One of the key reasons for recent interest in large-scale biofuels production is thepotential reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) provided by these fuels compared with fossilfuels. However, the net effect on GHG emissions depends on many factors and variesconsiderably across feedstocks. Thus, it is important to conduct life-cycle assessments (LCAs) ofthe use of alternative feedstocks for biofuels production to provide a full picture of the net effectsof each feedstock. Although biofuels produced fromjatropha could potentially reduce GHGs, thefull impacts of jatropha production are still beingmeasured. Although some studies have begunexploring the effects of expanded jatropha production, LCAs that study potential emissions ofjatropha biofuels from “well to wheel” are still underway. In addition, many of these LCAs donot include direct or indirect land use change fromjatropha cultivation, although those emissionsoften play an extremely important role in determining changes in net GHGs associated withbiofuels production from a given feedstock. Some recent studies that do include these measuresshow that given certain scenario assumptions, suchas cases where it replaces tropical forests orsavannah, jatropha may not produce net reductions in GHG emissions in the first cycle ofjatropha planting depending on the land type converted and other characteristics (Bailis andBaka, 2010; Achten and Verchot, 2011; Skutsch et al., 2011). However, some of these studieshave also found that if jatropha is grown on grasslands, marginal cropland, or severely degraded1-2forests, it can still produce net reductions in GHGemissions when land use change emissions areconsidered (Dehue and Hettinga, 2008; Bailis and Baka, 2010; Romijn, 2011).The remainder of this literature review and synthesis will summarize our technicalfindings on jatropha characteristics in a number ofkey areas, such as potential yields, oil content,optimal climate, and input use. In addition, we provide details from several LCAs that haveexplored the impacts of jatropha cultivation for biodiesel on net GHG emissions. Based onguidance provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), we assessed threeprimary research areas: (1) seed, oil, biodiesel, and coproduct yield; (2) climate and growingconditions; and (3) LCAs. Over 70 studies were reviewed to produce this report, but only thoseproviding quantitative data relevant to the three topic areas listed above are included in thisreview. Table 1-1 provides a brief overview of these relevant studies that helped inform thecontents of this literature review.Table 1-1. Most Relevant Studies Regarding JatrophaCharacteristics and Net GHGEmissionsStudy Study Focus Study AreaMarginal or ProductiveLandsAchten et al. (2012) Land use change Arid and semiarid BothAchten and Verchot (2011) LCA—land use included Ghana, Zambia, andMexicoBothAchten (2010) LCA—land use included India MarginalAchten et al. (2010c) Climate, breeding, andgeneticsGlobal BothAchten et al. (2008) Seed yield, oil production Nicaragua and CentralAmericaBothAlmeida (2009) LCA GeographicallyindependentBothAlmeida et al. (2011) LCA Location independent BothAxelsson and Franzén(2010)Socio-economics India BothBailis and Baka (2010) LCA—jet fuel, land useincludedBrazil ProductiveBailis and McCarthy (2011)Land use change India and Brazil ProductiveBrittaine and Lutaladio(2010)Overview Global BothGEXSI (2008) Overview Global Both(continued)1-3Table 1-1. Most Relevant Studies Regarding JatrophaCharacteristics and Net GHGEmissions (continued)Study Study Focus Study AreaMarginal or ProductiveLandsHou et al. (2011) LCA China ProductiveJoongschaap et al. (2007) Overview Global BothKumar et al. (2012) LCA India Rain-fed and irrigatedscenariosMaes et al. (2009) Climate Mexico and CentralAmerica241 naturally growinglocations and 83 plantationsNdong et al. (2009) LCA Ivory Coast and Mali,West AfricaBothPandey, Pragya, and Sahoo(2011)LCA India ProductivePrueksakorn and Gheewala(2006)LCA Thailand ProductivePrueksakorn and Gheewala(2008)Net energy ratio (NER) Thailand ProductiveReinhardt et al. (2007) LCA India MarginalReinhardt et al. (2008) Yields, inputs, and byproductsIndia MarginalRomijn (2011) Land use change Central/Eastern Africa BothSkutsch et al. (2011) Land use, socioeconomics Mexico ProductiveSrivastava et al. (2011) Yield India ProductiveStratton, Wong, andHileman (2010)LCA—jet fuel Global BothTrabucco et al. (2010) Climate, yield Global 259 naturally growinglocations and 15 plantationsWeyerhaeuser et al. (2007) Economics Southwest China BothWhitaker and Heath (2009) LCA India ProductiveWhitaker and Heath (2010) LCA India ProductiveWiskerke (2008) Economics Shinyanga, Tanzania MarginalXunmin et al. (2009) LCA China Not discussed2-1SECTION 2JATROPHA PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICSIn this section of the report, we focus on generalcharacteristics of jatropha productionthat are important components of an LCA modeling study.2.1 Dry Seed YieldThe 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 notproduce optimal seed yields in their first few years of cultivation. Increases in yield can bemeasured up to the eighth year of cultivation (Achten et al., 2008), but most studies considerjatropha to be mature by the fourth or fifth year.Although wild jatropha can have a lifetime of 30to 50 years (Achten et al., 2010c, 2008, Kalam et al., 2012), most analyses of jatrophaplantations have assumed a lifetime of 20 years (Almeida, 2009; Reinhardt et al., 2008). Theliterature does not provide an explanation for thetypical 20 year analysis lifespan nor does itaddress how seed yield may change after maturity with most authors assuming the yield achievedat maturity continues throughout the lifetime of the plantation. Table 2-1 reports jatropha seedyields, based on limited observed data from Malaysia, by plantation age as reported by Kalam etal. (2012).Table 2-1. Yields over Time in Malaysia (metric tons per ha)Year Range of Reported Yields Most Likely AverageYield1 0.25–1.25 0.52 1.0–2.5 1.53 2.0–5.0 3.04 5.0–6.25 5.05 6.25–7.5 6.5Source: Kalam, et al., (2012)Seed yield of jatropha is quite variable; the literature shows that a major factor affectingseed yield is the quality of the land where the crop is grown. Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) found inSouthwest China that jatropha yield on barren landcould produce seed yields from 1.7 tons perhectare per year (t/ha/yr) to 2.2 t/ha/yr, while jatropha on fertile lands had observed yieldsbetween 3.9 t/ha/yr and 7.5 t/ha/yr. Similarly, theliterature review included in Achten (2010)found that semiarid areas and wastelands typicallyproduce between 2 and 3 t/ha, whereas fertile2-2lands that receive adequate rainfall and optimal management can achieve average yields of 5t/ha/yr and up to 7.8 t/ha/yr.Very actively managed jatropha plantations are aiming to achieve even higher yields.Kumar et al. (2012) observed different seed yield ranges for rain-fed and irrigated crops. Rainfed jatropha was found to have an average yield of1.5 t/ha/yr, while irrigated jatropha couldrange from 2.5 to 12.5 t/ha/yr. The Kumar study used an average yield of 5.9 t/ha/yr for irrigatedjatropha plantations for its LCA. A biodiesel company in Mexico claims it will achieve a yield of11t/ha/yr (Skutsch et al., 2011), and a low-scale,high-input farm in India expects an averageyield of 11.3 t/ha/yr once the jatropha trees reach5 years of age (Pandey et al., 2011). Table 2-2summarizes yields that were either observed in thefield or assumed for jatropha LCAs. Trabuccoet al. (2010) reviewed yields from 15 jatropha plantations across the globe. The average expectedmature seed yield was 1.73 t/ha/yr; however, yieldsranged from 0.30 to 4.00 t/ha/yr. Trabucco etal. (2010) also found that under climate change projections out to 2020, jatropha yields woulddecrease by 11%. Because there is only a short timeseries of historical jatropha yield data andthe values reported have high variability, many ofthe LCAs used high, baseline, and low-yieldscenarios for jatropha yields to account for this variation.Table 2-2. Jatropha Seed YieldsYield (t/ha/yr)Study LocationObserved orAssumedMarginal orProductive Low High AverageaJongschaap et al. (2007) Global Observed Both 1.507.80Weyerhaeuser et al.(2007)Southwest China Observed Marginal 1.70 2.20Weyerhaeuser et al.(2007)Southwest China Observed Productive 3.90 7.50Wiskerke (2008) Tanzania Observed Marginal 2.00Achten et al. (2008) Nicaragua Observed Productive4.00Whitaker and Heath(2009)India Assumed Productive 3.75Almeida (2009) GeographicallyindependentAssumed Productive 4.29Lam et al. (2009) Malaysia Assumed Productive 5.00Achten (2010) India Observed Marginal 1.70Bailis and Baka (2010) Brazil Assumed Productive 2.00 6.00 4.00(continued)2-3Table 2-2. Jatropha Seed Yields (continued)Yield (t/ha/yr)Study LocationObserved orAssumedMarginal orProductive Low High AverageaLapola et al. (2010b) Brazil Assumed Productive 3.70Stratton, Wong, andHileman (2010)GeographicallyindependentAssumed Productive 1.00 5.00 2.50Trabucco et al. (2010) Central and SouthAmerica, Africa,India, and IndonesiaObserved Both 0.3 4 1.73Achten and Verchot(2011)Ghana, Zambia, &MexicoObserved Both 0.50 3.50Pandey et al. (2011) India Observed Productive 4.53Hou et al. (2011) China Observed Productive 1.50 5.00Almeida et al. (2011) Mexico, Brazil, India,& TanzaniaObserved Productive 4.30Skutsch et al. (2011) Mexico Assumed Productive 3.70 11.00 7.50Romijn (2011) Central/EasternAfricaAssumed Both 1.00Axelsson and Franzén(2010)India Observed Productive 5.80Kumar et al. (2012)—rain-fed scenarioIndia Observed Marginal 0.50 2.80 1.50Kumar et al. (2012)—irrigated scenarioIndia Observed Productive 2.50 12.50 5.90Gmünder et al. (2012)—rain-fed scenariosIndia Observed Both 0.4 0.6Gmünder et al. (2012)—irrigated scenariosIndia Observed Both 2 2.6aOr the assumed average value of seed yield for thestudy.2.2 Oil Content of SeedsThe amount of oil that can be generated from jatropha also depends on the oil content ofthe 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 ingeneral agreement with this assessment. Table 2-3 shows the oil content of jatropha seeds asobserved in the literature.2-4Table 2-3. Oil Content of Jatropha SeedsOil Content (%)Study LocationObserved orAssumedMarginal orProductive Low High AverageWeyerhaeuser et al. (2007) China Observed Both 30 41GEXSI (2008) Global Observed Both 30 35Whitaker and Heath (2009) India Assumed Productive35Brittaine (2010) Global Observed Both 32 40 34Achten (2010) Global Observed Both 27 40 34Stratton, Wong, and Hileman(2010)Global Assumed Productive 35Srivastrava et al. (2011) India Observed Both 17 34Pandey et al. (2011) India Observed Productive 38Hou et al. (2011) China Observed Productive 27 47 30Kumar et al. (2012) India Observed Productive 21 48392.3 Climate Conditions and ProductivityThe climatic conditions where jatropha is grown candramatically affect yields. Whenlooking at naturally occurring nondomesticated jatropha in Mexico and Central America, Maes(2009) found that 87% of jatropha grew in tropicalsavannah, temperate, or monsoon climates. Avery small number was found in semiarid climates, and no naturally growing jatropha was foundin arid climates (Maes, 2009). These findings are in sharp contrast to some of the locations thathave been chosen for jatropha plantations; farmershave often tried to grow jatropha on arid andsemiarid lands, including Srivastava et al. (2011)and Wiskerke (2008).In a paramount study, Trabucco et al. (2010) used species distribution modeling (SDM)using maximum-entropy (MaxEnt) techniques to predict the yield of naturally occurring jatrophabased on environmental factors (see Table 2-4). SBMfirst relates historical species specimens(325 validated specimens collected from the World Biodiversity Information Network) to thespecific locations (using existing geodatasets) inwhich they were collected. The relationships arethen extrapolated to other regions with similar environmental characteristics to predict both theprobability of occurrence and expected yield. Jongschaap et al. (2007) stated the “jatropha belt”exists between the latitudes of 30 degrees north and 35 degrees south. Based on the jatrophapredicted productivity map (see Figure 2-1), it canbe assumed that the most ideal regions for2-5jatropha growth are India, Southeast Asia, equatorial Africa, and parts of Central and SouthAmerica.Table 2-4. Trabucco et al. (2010) Productivity of Jatropha by Climate ZoneKöppen Climate ZoneaJatropha Average Productivity(kg dry seeds/ha/yr)Tropical humid climatesAf (tropical wet—no dry season)1,150Am (tropical monsoonal—short dry season; heavymonsoonal rains in other months)2,200Aw (tropical savanna—winter dry season) 2,300Dry climatesBSh (subtropical steppe—low-latitude)750Subtropical temperate climatesCw (humid subtropical—dry winter)1,950Cf (humid subtropical/marine without dry season—hotorwarm summers)1,550aSource for climate zones: Peel et al. (2007). Original classification has been modified to exclude frost riskconditions (minimum average temperature of the coldest month <8 ̊C).Figure 2-1. Predicted Jatropha Productivity Based on Geographic LocationSource: Trabucco et al. (2010)Jatropha can grow in a variety of temperature ranges within limits. Stratton, Wong, andHileman (2010) and many others have found jatrophato be frost intolerant. Frost can cause2-6immediate damage to the tree. Therefore, Trabucco et al. (2010) assumed that the averageminimum temperature of the coldest month in the year must not drop below 46 to 48 degreesFahrenheit (8 to 9 degrees Celsius). Maes (2009) found that among naturally growing jatropha,95% grew in areas where the average temperature ofthe coldest month was 51 degreesFahrenheit (10.5 degrees Celsius) or higher. The study also found the optimal range for jatrophagrowth was an area with a mean annual temperature between 74 and 79 degrees Fahrenheit (23.4and 26.2 degrees Celsius). Terrain does not appearto be a major factor in jatropha cultivation.Achten et al. (2008) suggested that the slope of ajatropha plantation should not be greater than30 degrees. In general, jatropha has been found toprefer well-drained soils that have goodaeration (Wahl et al., 2009) because the crop doesnot react well to water logging. Achten et al.(2008) also suggested soil depth should be at least18 inches (45 cm).Jatropha has been shown to survive under low rainfall; however, to produce yields moresuitable for commercial biofuel production, areas of higher rainfall and/or irrigation are required.The Maes (2009) study found that 95% of naturally occurring jatropha grew in areas withaverage annual rainfall above 37.2 inches (94.4 cm). The optimal range set by this study forjatropha growth was between 47.5and 78.8 inches (120.7 and 200.1 cm) per year of rainfall.Trabucco et al. (2010) found the optimal rainfall to be 59 inches (150 cm) per year. Achten et al.(2008) compared seed yields and annual precipitation and found a positive correlation of 0.22,though there were cases of higher yields with low precipitation and lower yields with higherprecipitation. This evidence supports the hypothesis that rainfall does affect jatropha yields, asdo other factors.2.4 Inputs: FertilizerSeveral studies found that farmers had to activelymanage their jatropha plantation anduse fertilizers, chemicals, and irrigation to obtain adequate yields. Fertilizer use is neededbecause jatropha has been found to remove nutrientsfrom the soil, and using fertilizer can returnthose nutrients to the soil so jatropha can grow (Achten, 2010). Fertilizer use varied among thestudies. The most popular fertilizer was a mix of nitrogen, phosphorus (P205), and potassium(K20), otherwise known as NPK. The reported use of fertilizer was given in several differentterms, shown in Table 2-5 for each study providinginformation on fertilizer application.Most studies found that fertilizer was required toensure jatropha growth during the earlyyears. Several studies found that NPK could be replaced by the seedcake by-product after thejatropha had reached maturity. This NPK replacementis addressed later in theCo-Productssection of the report. Ndong et al. (2009) found the first 3 years to be crucial for NPK2-7application; in the fourth year NPK and ammo-nitrate were applied and by the fifth year jatrophaby-products sufficed as fertilizer. Whitaker and Heath (2009) assumed (based on observationsfrom jatropha plantations in India) that fertilizerapplication usually happens twice a year, onceat the beginning and once at the end of the rainy season. Pandey et al. (2011) found that fertilizerwas initially used every 6 months and once per yearafter the jatropha produced fruits based onobservations 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 theland 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 etal. (2009) found that fertilizer costs anaverage of 0.19 USD per acre per year when inorganic fertilizer was used and 0.15 USD per acreper year when organic fertilizer was used. 

# 2-8Table 2-5. NPK Fertilizer ApplicationPounds of Fertilizer UsedStudy LocationObserved orAssumedMarginal orProductive N P KN:P:K(15:15:15) Other Unit NotesAchten et al.(2008)West Africa Observed Both 12.8–30.6 12.8–28.2For a yield of 1 tonper acreReinhardt et al.(2008)India Observed Marginal 42.8 17 47.3 Per acre peryearPrueksakorn &Gheewala (2008)Thailand Observed Productive 688.9 Per yearAlmeida (2009) Global Both Both 66.9 20.5 44.6 Per acre per yearWhitaker andHeath (2009)India Assumed Productive 74.9 30.3 83.9 Per acreper yearBailis and Baka(2010)Brazil Observed Productive 74.9 30.3 83.9 0.8 t/acre oflimePer acre per yearStratton, Wong,and Hileman(2010)Global Assumed Productive 0.034 0.013 0.037 Per pound of seedPandey et al.(2011)India Observed Productive 50 millionpounds ofurea for totalnursery stage)DAP: 0.04 lbcow dung:0.45 lbPer plant afternursery stageHou et al. (2011) China Observed Productive 42.8 11.9 7.9Almeida et al.(2011)Global Assumed Both 1.46 0.73 1.46 Per 1 gallon ofbiodiesel produced2-92.5 Inputs: IrrigationWater usage to grow jatropha has been higher than previously expected. Althoughjatropha can withstand droughts and potentially even produce better yields when drought occursduring its lifetime, irrigation may be necessary toachieve yields high enough for profitablebiofuel production. Table 2-6 displays the water requirements found throughout the literature. Inan economic study of jatropha plantations, irrigation accounted for 66% to 79% of all inputs forcultivation (Axelsson and Franzén, 2010). Wahl et al. (2009) found that the average annual costfor irrigating jatropha on fertile land in Tanzaniawas 6.07 USD per acre per year.The rate of irrigation varied among jatropha studies, but generally the literature showsthat irrigation can have a large impact on yield. Achten et al. (2008) found that although yieldvaries significantly even in high precipitation orirrigation growing conditions, for plantationsthat receive less than 39 inches (100.0 cm) of water annually seed yield does not exceed 2.2t/ha/yr. Several studies assumed that irrigation was only required for the first 3 years, includingWhitaker and Heath (2009) and Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010). Ndong et al. (2009) foundin 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 amountsto 24.7 gallons per acre per day, or 9,028.9 gallons per acre per year if irrigation is conducted ona daily basis year-round. Prueksakorn and Gheewala(2006) found for jatropha plantations inThailand 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 themonsoon was late that year. When irrigation did occur, it was about 1,604 gallons per acre peryear. On more productive land in India, irrigationwas done 16 times for the initial 2 years andjust twice a year for all following years. This equated to 4,009 gallons per acre where there were1,012 jatropha plants per acre (2,500/ha) (Pandey et al., 2011).Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2008) found that 98 inches (250 cm) of rainfall per yearwere sufficient for jatropha to not require irrigation. For the NREL study of jatropha biofuel usedin Indian trains, Whitaker and Heath (2009) assumedthat the amount of irrigation required peryear could be calculated by subtracting the actualaverage rainfall from the 98 inches (250 cm)estimated rainfall requirement. For the area that was being studied in India, the average annualrainfall was 54 inches (138.5 cm) per year, so it was estimated that the jatropha plantation wouldneed 44 inches (111.5 cm) per year in irrigation. For establishing a geographically independentLCA for jatropha, Almeida et al. (2011) assumed that 148 gallons (0.56 m3) of irrigated waterwere required per 1 gallon of biodiesel that was produced.2-10Table 2-6. Irrigation RequirementsStudy LocationObserved orAssumedMarginal orProductiveIrrigationPrueksakorn andGheewala (2006)Thailand Observed Productive 123,157 gallons per acre per yearWhitaker and Heath(2009)India Assumed Productive 44 inches per yearNdong et al. (2009) West Africa Observed Both 24.7gallons per acre (nursery stage)Achten (2010) India Observed Marginal 1,604 gallonsper acre per year (only whenmonsoon is late)Pandey et al. (2011) India Observed Productive 4,009 gallons per acre per year (2.64 gallonsper plant)Almeida et al. (2011) Global Assumed Both 21,676 gallons per 1 gallon of biodieselproduced2.6 Production CostsAll of these inputs (irrigation, fertilizer, and agrochemicals) contribute to the overallproduction costs of using jatropha for biodiesel. Afew jatropha studies evaluated theseproduction costs. When jatropha was grown on productive lands in Tanzania, average annualproduction costs (including opportunity costs associated with both land and labor1) wereestimated to be 95 USD per acre in the first year and 82 USD per acre per year by maturity atyear five (Wahl et al., 2009). Several input costswere found to decline once jatropha plantsreached maturity because inputs for irrigation, fertilizer, and weeding were reduced. A majorityof the farmers surveyed in Tanzania considered jatropha to be a high-input crop and requiredactive management. These annual production costs compare with Rijssenbeek et al. (2007) whofound annual production costs in India to be about81 USD per acre per year, and in China thesecosts were 162 USD per acre per year.Another study of Tanzania jatropha on degraded landfound that it cost 0.36 USD inproduction costs to produce 1 pound of jatropha oil. Harvesting accounted for 41% of theproduction costs, while pressing and filtering accounted for 50%, with the remaining balancefrom planting, weeding, manure application, and pruning (Wiskerke, 2008). This estimate isconsistent with the range estimated by Weyerhaeuseret al. (2007) for southwestern China: 0.151Land opportunity cost was included as the averagerenting price per hectare of fertile land in this area (21 to 32USD). Family labor was valued at the average compensation for farm labor (1.72 USD per man-day) to accountfor the opportunity cost of family labor.2-11to 0.66 USD per pound of jatropha oil. Much of thevariation in the Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007)estimates results from significant uncertainty regarding extractable oil content.2.7 Land Competition and Opportunity CostsThe viability of jatropha yields depends on the land use types that jatropha plantationstake over. The impact on GHG emissions also dependslargely on the previous land use type. In2008, GEXSI’s global review of jatropha found thatonly 1.2% of areas planted with jatrophahad replaced food production. As marginal lands have been found to provide low yields in manycases, anecdotal information suggests that jatrophaproduction has been moving toward morefertile lands such as shrubland and agricultural land. However, our literature review did not findstudies that specifically discussed significant replacement of other agricultural crops. Typically,the LCAs that have been developed to date focus onjatropha development on land that was notpreviously used for agricultural production and donot consider the displacement of existingcrops. Literature that does assess displacement indicates that the type of crop displaced is highlycontingent on individual context. In Bailis and Baka (2010), out of the 11 jatropha growersstudied only 3 of the farmers had previously used the land for food production. The landdisplaced was 297 acres, and the displaced crops were manioc, maize, beans, and bananas. InWest Africa, jatropha replaced old cotton fields because the price of cotton had dropped andjatropha cultivation became more attractive (Ndonget al., 2009). Evidence of jatropha directlyreplacing forested, crop, and fallow land is reported in the case studies reviewed by Achten andVerchot (2011), as shown in Table 2-7.Table 2-7. Case Studies Assessing Land Types Converted to JatrophaCase Study Woodland and Forest Crops FallowGhana 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 therelatively high oil yield from jatropha seed will require conversion of less land to produce agiven quantity of energy than would be required formost other biomass feedstocks. Lapola et al.(2010a) found that, when considering hectares of land converted alone, palm oil is the mostefficient means to meet Brazil’s 2020 biofuel goals. Jatropha was the second most efficient crop2-12followed by rapeseed/sunflower and soybean. Research conducted by Lam et al. (2009) inMalaysia confirmed palm oil’s superior oil efficiency, estimating that 0.28 ha of land wasrequired to produce 1 ton of biodiesel from palm oil compared with 0.61 ha for jatropha.However, it should be noted that crops such as rapeseed, sunflower, and soybeans produce largeramounts of edible meal which can be used as animalfeed and for other purposes.2.8 Seed Crushing, Oil Extraction, Pretreatment, and ProcessingThe first step in creating biodiesel from jatrophainvolves extracting the oil from driedjatropha seeds. There are three ways to perform oilextraction: manual ram pressing, mechanicalscrew pressing, and solvent extraction using hexane. Table 2-8 provides the oil extractionefficiencies, based on mass, of these three methods. Manual pressing of seeds can be done byfarmers and on a local scale; while mechanical pressing and solvent extraction require acentralized processing center (hexane requirementsfor solvent extraction are presented later inthis section). Although manual pressing has a lowerextracting efficiency, it can greatly reducethe transportation requirements for biodiesel processing. The literature shows that centralizedprocessing requires more energy and thus higher GHGemissions than decentralized processing(Almeida, 2009).Table 2-8. Methods of Oil ExtractionExtraction Method Extraction Efficiency (%)Manual ram press60–65Mechanical screw press70–80Solvent extraction (using hexane)95–99Sources: Henning et al., (2000); Achten et al. (2008)Mechanical expeller, or screw press, inputs vary significant by technology type. Thesemay be powered by diesel generators, connection toan electricity grid, or biofuel output from thepress itself. They may also vary significantly in processing capacity and sophistication. Availableestimates for electricity use per ton of seed inputrange from 6 kWh (Dehue and Hettinga, 2008)to 276 kWh1(Beerens and van Eijck, 2010) per ton of jatrophaoil output. Dehue and Hettinga(2008) mention extensively that the 6 kWh/t value provided by producers in India is likely low.These oil extraction processes create crude jatropha oil with 2.23% to 5.23% free fattyacid (FFA) content (Akbar et al., 2009; Kywe and Oo, 2009). Often farmers or early processorswill perform pretreatment before the crude oil is converted into a biodiesel. A popular form of1Report provides value of 0.3 kWh/L. Converted to kWh/t assuming 0.92 kg per liter of jatropha oil.2-13pretreatment is degumming where phosphorus contentis depleted by heating the crude oil to 60°C and adding 0.01% phosphoric acid by weight of theoil followed by a second heating with theaddition of 2% water (Humana, n.d.). Free-fatty acids (FFAs) are then neutralized with sodiumhydroxide (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 soyprocessing industry, but has not yet beentried in the jatropha industry. Bailis and Baka assumed this would require 12 kg (26 lb) NaOHper ton semi-refined jatropha oil (Bailis and Baka,2010).Crude jatropha oil is thick and tough on diesel engines, and its direct use would requireengine modification. However, crude jatropha oil can be converted to biodiesel (jatropha oilmethyl ester (JME)) using the transesterification process where a catalyst is used to reduce theviscosity of the oil and make it compatible for usein diesel engines. Table 2-9 shows observedbiodiesel conversion efficiencies, by mass, of jatropha oil transesterification as reflected in theliterature. Conversion efficiencies are consistentacross 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 Oilthrough TransesterificationStudyConversion Efficiency (%)Whitaker and Heath (2009)95Achten (2010)97Pandey et al. (2011)95Table 2-10 summarizes the required inputs for biodiesel production from transesterificationfrom an LCA of jatropha processing in India (Kumaret al., 2012).2-14Table 2-10. Inputs for Biodiesel Production via Transesterification in IndiaInputQuantityPlant capacity (KTPA)100Oil (kg/t biodiesel)1,050Methanol (kg/t biodiesel)117Sodium hydroxide (kg/t biodiesel) 12.8Electricity (MJ/t biodiesel) 130Steam (kg/t biodiesel)660Circulated water (m3)55Glycerin (kg/kg biodiesel) 0.125Note: Tons listed in this table are metric tons. KPTA stands for kilotonnes per annum.Another type of oil processing used for jatropha oil, especially in the production ofcommercial jet fuel, is hydroprocessing. Accordingto Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010),hydroprocessing is used to “deoxygenate the oil with subsequent hydrocracking to createhydrocarbons that fill the distillation range of jet fuel,” (p. 50). In a study comparing the GHGemissions of jatropha hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) to JME, Rettenmaier et al.(2008) found that JME had slightly better reductions in GHG emissions, but overall their resultswere comparable. HEFA requires processing of crudejatropha oil at a centralized processinglocation that may not be as accessible to some jatropha farmers and biodiesel producers. An LCAof synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK), a type of hydroprocessed renewable jet fuel, estimatedthat 0.48 lb of SPK and 0.39 lb of other biobased hydrocarbons (fuel gas, liquefied petroleum gas(LPG), diesel, and naphtha) could be produced for each pound of hydroprocessed semi-refinedjatropha oil (Bailis and Baka, 2010). Table 2-11 shows the required inputs used for solvent-basedoil extraction.2-15Table 2-11. Inputs for Solvent-Based Extraction ofCrude Jatropha Oil from Dry SeedsParameter Value Units Assumptions/Notes SourceExtraction efficiency 91% Mass percent Percent of jatropha oil available inseeds extracted via solventextractionPlanning Commissionof India (2003)Electricity use 55 kWh per tonof seed inputAverage electricity use forcontinuous solvent extraction perton of jatropha seed inputAdriaans (2006)Hexane use 4 kg per ton ofseed inputAverage amount of hexane used incontinuous solvent extraction;99% is recycledAdriaans (2006); Sarin(2008)Steam use 280 kg per ton ofseed inputAverage amount of steam requiredfor continuous solvent extractionAdriaans (2006)Water use 12 m3per ton ofseed inputAverage amount of water requiredfor continuous solvent extraction(consumed and discharged tosewer)Adriaans (2006)Jatropha oiltransportation0 km Assumes oil extraction facility iscolocated with thetransesterification plantSarin (2008)Table source: Whitaker and Heath (2009)2.9 Co-productsJatropha can produce many different by-products. However, because of the toxicity ofjatropha many of its by-products must be used carefully. By-products of other biofuel feedstockcrops such as soybean are used for animal feeding.Meal created from jatropha by-products has ahigh protein content that makes it attractive as ananimal feed (Devappa et al., 2010). However,this meal contains phorbol esters that have been shown to cause death and adverse health effectsin some animals (Wang et al., 2011). These toxins cannot be removed by heat, but theirconcentration can be reduced using methanol sodiumhydroxide, microbial fermentation, or anorganic solvent treatment. In the Wang et al. (2011) study, the soybean meal used in feeding pigswas replaced with detoxified jatropha meal and no significant difference in health effects ornutritive value was found when compared with the soybean meal. Devappa et al. (2010) alsofound no adverse health effects in pigs, fish, or turkeys. These studies demonstrate the potentialto use by-products of jatropha for animal feed, butit will require the process of detoxification,which is economically infeasible with current technology especially in the developing worldwhere the majority of jatropha is harvested.The literature suggests that the most important andusable by-products of jatrophaplantations are seedcake, fruit husks, and the biomass of the trees. Seedcake is formed by the2-16remains of seeds after they have been pressed for oil. Almeida (2009) found that for each ton ofoil extracted from dry seeds, 2.639 tons of seedcake was produced. Seedcake has high nutrientproperties, and in many studies it was able to replace the use of fertilizers when applied to land.Devappa et al. (2010) found that the toxic phorbolesters of the jatropha seedcake degrade in soilin a maximum of 9 days, making it a viable fertilizing option. This process can help reduce GHGemissions that come from fertilizer application. Inthe Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2008) study,1 pound of jatropha seedcake was assumed to equal 0.15 pound of NPK fertilizer. Seedcake isalso shown to have an N:P:K proportion of 40:20:10(Whitaker and Heath, 2009). Table 2-12shows the fertilizing properties of jatropha by-products. Seedcake, along with husks, can bepackaged into pellets of briquettes and burned directly for energy (Bailis and Baka, 2010). A fewstudies reviewed even used seedcake for biogas production. Almeida (2009) assumed that 1pound of seedcake could produce 4.73 gallons of biogas.Table 2-12. Nutrient Contents of Jatropha Seedcakeand HuskSeedcake Husks TotalMass fraction of dry fruit (%) 29% 37% 66%Quantity produced per gigajoule SPKoutput (kg)58 kg 66 kg 124 kgMacro-nutrient contenta117N5.5% 0.4% 3.5 kg (as N)P2.6% 0.03% 3.4 kg (as P2O5)K1.4% 0.9% 2.2 kg (as K2O)aIn the far right column, P and K follow standard convention for labeling commercial fertilizer and arereported asP2O5and K2O equivalents where %P2O5= %P/0.436 and %K2O = %K/0.83.Source: Bailis and Baka (2010)Many of the LCAs also found value in the biomass from pruning the trees throughoutcultivation and using the wood from the tree afterthe end of its productive lifetime for oilproduction (often assumed to be 20 to 30 years). NREL (Whitaker and Heath, 2009) indicatedthat based on personal communication with the Indian Oil Corporation, they used biomass yieldsof 2.5 kg/tree (5.5 lb/tree) in the first year, 4.5kg/tree (9.9 lb/tree) in the second year, and anaverage of 8.5 kg/tree (18.7 lb/tree)of biomass permature tree. Most of the LCAs reviewedincluded biomass and assumed it was burned for electricity use. Figure 2-2 demonstrates thecreation and uses of jatropha by-products.2-17Figure 2-2. The By-products of Jatropha Oil Extraction and Their UsesSource: Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010)3-1SECTION 3NET EFFECTS ON GHG EMISSIONSThis section focuses primarily on the results presented in studies that specificallyaddressed GHG emissions from jatropha production, including both those that providedinformation on specific components of net emissionsas well as those that present an LCA.3.1 Carbon StorageThe relatively long productive life of the perennial jatropha crop can help store morecarbon in the soil relative to an annual crop as well as sequestering carbon in the plant biomass.This ability has led many to believe that jatrophacultivation may be able to earn carbon creditsunder the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or other international or bilateral agreements.Reinhardt et al. (2007) qualitatively discussed therelationship between previous land useand carbon stock impacts. Only in areas with littleto no vegetation (i.e., deserts) is jatrophaexpected to positively affect carbon storage. Whenjatropha replaces existing vegetation, theoutcomes are uncertain and likely reduce carbon stock. Later work led by Reinhardt (Reinhardtet al., 2008) assumed the average carbon stock for3.5-year-old jatropha to be 5tC/ha. Srivastravaet al. (2011) notes a rough estimate of CO2fixed by jatropha plantations at 1.5 tC1/ha/yr andindicates future detailed research on this topic isforthcoming. Axelsson and Franzén (2010)estimated the range of annual carbon sequestrationbased on mature (> 3 years of age)plantations in Egypt and India to be from 0.13 tC/ha/yr to 0.45 tC/ha/yr. In Mexico, jatrophaplantations were estimated to have a biomass carbonstock of 4 tC/ha (moderate assumption) or10 tC/ha (optimal assumption where jatropha is grown on prime agricultural land) by the tenthyear, assuming no pruning had taken place (Skutschet al., 2011). Ogunwole et al. (2008) andWani et al. (2012) found that jatropha increased the carbon concentration in severely depletedsoils, potentially leading to increased carbon storage.3.2 Energy UseTo determine the full LCA GHG emissions, the energyrequired to produce biodieselfrom jatropha must be measured. When looking at thetotal energy consumption of usingjatropha for biodiesel, transesterification accounted for 61% of all energy consumption, whilecultivation only accounted for 12% in a study of jatropha in West Africa (Ndong et al., 2009).Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2006) studied a jatrophaplantation in Thailand and found energyuse to be 0.03 MWh per gal of biodiesel produced. Forty percent of total energy was consumed1Converted from reported 5.5 t CO2.3-2during transesterification, 23% was used for irrigation, and fertilizer accounted for 22% of totalenergy 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 yearto operate a 123,553-acre jatropha plantation, or 0.1 MWh per acre. Kumar et al. (2012) foundthat 6.07 MWh were required to produce 1 ton of biodiesel under the irrigated scenario, while7.7 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 gallonof biodiesel. This study also found that the energyrequired to produce biodiesel from jatrophaused 88% less nonrenewable energy than a diesel fuel reference case. Whitaker and Heath (2010)found a less optimistic, but still positive, resultwhen assessing the use of jatropha biodiesel tomeet the renewable fuel goals for the road and railsectors 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 jatrophainto biodiesel jet fuel based on Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010).3.3 Net Energy RatioAnother way to examine jatropha’s potential benefits as a biofuel feedstock is to look atits net energy ratio (NER). The NER looks at the ratio of how much energy is required toproduce the fuel versus the amount of energy the fuel can produce. An NER greater than oneindicates that the fuel produces more energy than is required to make the fuel. Values reported inthe literature for jatropha NER are typically greater than one. Biodiesel from jatropha was shownto have a higher NER than regular diesel fuel but had a lower NER than other biofuels such aspalm oil (Achten, 2010; Lam et al., 2009). In Lam et al. (2009), the palm biodiesel NER isslightly higher not because of large differences inthe energy consumed during production butbecause of much higher oil production in palm. Several studies demonstrated that whencoproducts such as biomass and seedcake were used for energy, the NER could be as high as6.03 (Prueksakorn and Gheewala, 2008). Ndong et al.(2009) also calculated a high NER of 4.7if jatropha by-products were included. Most of these studies looked at the capability of jatrophaover 20 years, while the Pandey et al. (2011) studyfocused on just the first 5 years. Table 3-2shows values for jatropha biodiesel NER found in the literature, not accounting for coproducts.3-3Table 3-1. Energy Requirements for Jatropha Jet Fuel (SPK)Lowa,bBaselineaHighaReceiving and StorageElectricity 33.5 38.3 39.4Jatropha PreparationElectricity (briquetting) 93.2 122.8 126.6Electricity (decorticator) 23.2 24.6 25.3Electricity (dehusking) 51.6 59.0 60.7Electricity (cleaning) 3.0 2.9 3.0Steam (cleaning) 125.9 123.2 127.0Oil Extraction (N-hexaneextraction)Electricity 9.4 9.2 9.5N-hexanec77.3 75.7 77.9Meal ProcessingElectricity 38.1 37.3 38.4Steam 368.7 361.0 371.9Oil RecoveryElectricity 1.0 1.0 1.0Steam 63.2 61.9 63.8Solvent RecoveryElectricity 1.4 1.3 1.4Steam 0.0 0.0 0.0Oil DegummingElectricity 4.4 4.3 4.5Steam 49.7 48.6 50.1Waste TreatmentElectricity 1.5 1.5 1.5Steam 26.7 26.2 27.0TotalsElectricity 260.3 302.1 311.2Natural Gasd792.8 776.3 799.6N-hexanec77.3 75.7 77.9aAll values are in Btu per pound of oil.bThe low emissions case appears to have higher process energy than the baseline; however, this arisesdue a largerfraction of the seed weight going through the extraction processes (see Table 71) and is counteractedin the fuelproduction stage.cGREET uses Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) as a surrogate for N-hexane when calculating emissions.dSteam is generated from natural gas with an efficiency of 80%.Source: Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010)3-4Table 3-2. Net Energy Ratio (NER) of JatrophaStudyNER Without By-productsAchten (2010)1.35Kumar et al. (2012)—rain fed scenario 1.40Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2008)1.42Almeida (2009)1.42Kumar et al. (2012)—irrigated scenario 1.70Pandey et al. (2011)1.77Reinhardt et al. (2008)1.80Whitaker and Heath (2009)1.90Lam et al. (2009)1.923.4 LCALCAs of jatropha as a feedstock for biodiesel (andvarious other energy endpoints) havebeen conducted for countries and regions within Southeast Asia, China, West Africa, and Southand Central America. The approach and results are relatively consistent and estimate majordeclines in GHG emissions and nonrenewable energy use (between 40 and 80%) coupled withpotential negative environmental impacts (e.g., acidification, eutrophication, ecotoxicity). Table3-3 summarizes the findings and assumptions of the11 LCAs identified in this literature review.None of the LCAs in this section included estimatesof GHG emissions from direct orindirect land use change. Recent research indicatesthat these emissions may have a profoundeffect on the GHG implications of bioenergy (Searchinger et al., 2008). Studies addressing thistopic are discussed in detail below. Further, eachof the LCAs identified relies on generic N2Oemission factors calculated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Researchhas yet to be conducted on jatropha-specific emission factors. Additional research is alsorequired on the viability of jatropha coproducts for crop fertilization in lieu of or in addition tochemical fertilization (Fan et al., 2012).Emission and energy use reductions are consistent across geographic regions andbetween the country-specific and geographically generic models. In most cases, where land usechange is not included, fertilizer application andbiodiesel production are the two largestcontributors to biodiesel emissions, representing between 30% and 50% of total emissions.Although emissions from biodiesel production methods are fairly well quantified, significantuncertainty surrounds fertilizer emissions resulting from jatropha cultivation. Fertilizer is an3-5essential input for cultivation of most agricultural crops. Thus, emissions from fertilizerapplication are directly linked to the previous land use. For example, if the land to be cultivatedas jatropha is already in agricultural production,significant increases in emissions from fertilizeruse are unexpected. Conversion of fallow or pastureland would lead to significant increases.Many of the LCAs cited the emissions from using fertilizer as the highest contributor to jatrophaGHG emissions.3-6Table 3-3. Summary of LCA StudiesStudy Geography Key FindingsFertilizerEmissionsPrevious LandUse CommentsKumar et al.(2012)India GHG declined 50% to 107% for irrigatedscenario, 40% to 93% for rain fedEmission factorsource notlocatedMarginal landswith negligiblevegetationVariation from assumed seed yield,inclusion of coproducts, and differentdisplacement scenariosAchten (2010) India•Nonrenewable energy use declined 82%•Global warming potential (GWP) declined55%•Acidification potential increased 49%•Eutrophication potential increased 430%Emission factorsfrom IPCCguidanceUnproductiveclay minesSystem includes cultivation, oilextraction, transesterification,transportation, infrastructure, andmaintenanceWhitaker andHeath (2010)India•GHG intensityadeclined 3 to 72%•Crude oil displacement declined 4 and88%bEmission factorsfrom IPCCguidanceNo information Biodiesel for locomotives and roadvehiclesVariation from mix of biofuel (B5 toB100)Whitaker andHeath (2009)India•GHG intensity declined 3 to 62%•Crude oil displacement declined 4 and 86%Emission factorsfrom IPCCguidanceNo information Biodiesel for locomotives onlyVariation from mix of biofuel (B5 toB100)Hou et al.(2011)China•Nonrenewable energy use declined 82%•GWP declined 80%•Significant negative impacts to chemicaloxidation, acidification, eutrophicationEmission factorsfrom IPCCguidanceNo informationXunmin et al.(2009)China GHGs declined by 49% Emission factorsource notlocatedNo information 35% of emissions from fertilizerapplicationPrueksakornand Gheewala(2006)Thailand GHGs declined by 77% Emission factorsource notlocatedUniversityresearch plots31% of emissions from fertilizerapplication, 26% from irrigationCrop grown annually and assumedyield 5t/ha of dry seed(continued)3-7Table 3-3. Summary of LCA Studies (continued)Study Geography Key FindingsFertilizerEmissionsPrevious LandUse CommentsNdong et al.(2009)Ivory CoastcGHGs declined by 72% Emission factorsnot specific tojatrophaCotton fields Primary data collected fromsmallholder and research farmsEstimates reflect high level of manuallabor compared with other LCAs thatrely on machineryAlmeida et al.(2011)Genericincluding datafrom India,Mexico,Brazil,Tanzania, andThailand•Nonrenewable energy use declined 78 to88%•GWP declined 51 to 54%•Acidification and eutrophication potentialincreased 8 times•Fossil fuel production required 4.4 lesslandEmission factorsfrom IPCCguidanceNo information Achten is coauthor and paper (data,methods) very similar to Achten (2010)generic case. Should not be consideredas separate data points.Achten (2010) Genericincluding datafrom India,Mexico,Brazil,Tanzania, andIndia•Nonrenewable energy use declined 87%•GWP declined 45%•Acidification & eutrophication potentialincreased 8.5 times•Fossil fuel production required 4.4 lesslandEmission factorsfrom IPCCguidanceNo information System includes cultivation, oilextraction, transesterification,transportation, infrastructure, andmaintenanceStratton et al.(2010)Generic butbased on datafrom IndiadGHG declined by 48 to 64% depending onseed yield assumptionsEmission factorsfrom IPCCguidanceResearch plots LCA of jet fuel, not biodieselSolvent-based extraction, coproducts allburned for electricity20% of total emissions are fromfertilizer applicationaGHG intensity defined as GHG emissions per gross-ton-kilometer (GTK) and measures the tons of goods or passengers hauled 1 kilometer.bUsing same GTK criteria as GHG intensity.cThough significant data are collected from Mali.dFrom Reinhardt et al. (2008).3-8The LCA conducted by Kumar et al. (2012) specifically investigated the GHGimplications of using jatropha coproducts to replace chemical fertilizer use on the same crops.The scenario including this assumption resulted inhigher GHG reductions than any otherscenario considered. Further research on the exactimpacts of fertilizer use in jatropha cultivationis essential to fully understanding the GHG implications of its use. Our review of the literaturealso found that jatropha’s impact on GHG emissionscan be reduced by using the biodiesellocally (thus reducing transportation), using seedcake for fertilizer, and using other by-productsfor biogas.The analysis conducted by Kumar et al. (2012) alsohighlighted the importance ofallocating GHG emissions within LCAs. The authors evaluated three cases, allocating emissionsby either mass, energy, or market value. Choice ofallocation metric had a significant impact onfinal results, with market value allocation resulting in emissions reductions 10 to 20% less thanthose estimated in the mass and energy scenarios. Because of these potential differences, it isrecommended that LCAs evaluate different allocationmethods in each case to better understandsensitivity to this factor.Gmünder et al. (2010) performed an LCA of village electrification fueled by primaryjatropha oil, rather than biodiesel, from shrubs grown in marginal soils along roadsides andhedges and found that GHG emissions were reduced bya factor of 6 compared with the dieselfuel and generator grid base cases, indicating thatresults of a similar caliber may be expected forother types of bioenergy production.A range of CO2equivalent emissions per 1 gallon of biodiesel produced were found inthe literature: 3,441 g CO2e in the Ndong et al. (2009) study of jatropha in West Africa and 5,789g CO2e when using jatropha for jet fuel (Stratton, Wong,and Hileman, 2010). Kumar et al.(2012) found that production of 1 ton of biodieselunder the irrigated scenario resulted in 1,334kg of CO2emissions, while the rain-fed scenario resulted inemissions of 1,768 kg of CO2perton 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 underjatropha than conventional diesel as long as seed yields were better than 1 t/ha/yr, which evenjatropha grown on marginal lands has been known toproduce. Working in the People’s Republicof 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 andfound jatropha produced the largest overall reductions. However, an LCA conducted by Lam etal. (2009), found that a palm oil-based biodiesel system is capable of sequestering 20 times morecarbon than a jatropha-based system almost entirelydue to faster biomass growth and carbon3-9assimilation in palm oil plantations. This analysisdid not include GHG emissions resulting fromland use change.Other environmental factors besides GHG emissions should be taken into account todetermine the full environmental impact. LCA studies such as Achten (2010), Hou et al. (2011),and Gmünder et al. (2012) found that jatropha increases acidification, due to the increasedapplication of ammonia through fertilizer, and eutrophication, as phosphorus is leaked intosurface waters due to soil erosion. Achten (2010) found this impact to be 430% higher than thereference diesel fuel system. Hou et al. (2011) even suggests that these additional environmentalimpacts may negate the GHG emissions reductions from jatropha. Gmünder et al. (2012) alsofinds that jatropha led to increased ecotoxicity (linked to the use of pesticides at cropestablishment) and water depletion. These are concerns for agricultural production in general andare not specific to jatropha. The impacts may be significantly lower if jatropha is planted onexisting agricultural sites. In fact, on degraded agricultural soils, both Ogunwole et al. (2008) andWani et al. (2012) found that jatropha increased the carbon concentration in severely depletedsoils, potentially leading to increased water holding capacity.3.5 Emissions from Land Use ChangeAlthough every LCA makes varying assumptions to come to its conclusions about thetotal impact of jatropha biodiesel on the environment, the most important difference between thecurrent LCAs in the literature is typically in their accounting for land use change (direct and/orindirect). Analyses including land use change consistently found that changes in carbon stockresulting from land conversion prior to cultivationhave the potential to profoundly affectwhether bioenergy produced from jatropha results ina net positive or negative impact on overallGHG emissions. Jatropha plantations established ondegraded pastures, agricultural lands, orfallows tend to reduce overall emissions, while establishments replacing shrublands and forestsproduce a carbon debt that may not be repaid for several centuries. Table 3-4 summarizes thedirect land use change (dLUC) literature covered inthis review. Indirect land use change (iLUC),where addressed, is included in the discussion of each study below.3-10Table 3-4. Summary of Direct Land Use Change LiteratureStudy Geography Carbon Stock/GHG Impact Displaced LandBailis and McCarthy(2011)India, Brazil No difference in India10–20 year repayment period inBrazilWoodlandsDehue and Hettinga(2008)India Emissions declined by 66 to 68%totalInclusion of dLUC emissionsreduced GHG-savings by 2.8 to4.8%GrasslandsAchten et al. (2012) Generic No difference GrasslandsBailis and Baka(2010)Brazil Emissions declined 83% comparedwith conventional jet fuel basecaseAgriculturalEmissions increased by 60%compared with conventional jetfuel base caseShrublandsRomijn (2011) Central andEastern AfricaPayback period of 30+ years Miombo woodlands—pristine ordegraded biomass or biomassImmediate carbon benefit Miombo woodlands—degradedsoil carbon and biomassAchten and Verchot(2011)Ghana Repayment period of 71 to 129years46% woodlandMichocan,MexicoRepayment period of 72 to 183years25% secondary woodlandZambia Repayment period of 60 to 101years24% woodlandYucatan,MexicoRepayment period of 60 to 100years100% secondary woodlandChiapas,MexicoRepayment period of 7 to 30 years 5% secondary woodlandBailis and McCarthy (2011) evaluated the carbon impacts of direct land change insemiarid woodlands in India and Brazil. Destructivesampling was used to compare abovegroundand soil organic carbon in recently established jatropha plantations and adjacent natural systems(prosopis woodlands in India andcaatingawoodlands in Brazil). Four years after theestablishment of jatropha, the authors found no statistically significant change in eitheraboveground or soil carbon stocks in India but found substantial declines in aboveground carbonin Brazil, due almost entirely to differences in the carbon stock of the prosopis andcaatingawoodlands. The analysis estimates that the carbon debt created from production in Brazil would3-11take 10 to 20 years to recover. In a similar case,rough estimates by Achten (2010) found that theaverage stock of carbon stored in jatropha per hectare was almost identical to the carbon storedin the grasslands that had previously covered the study area. Essentially, the carbon gains ofjatropha canceled out the carbon losses of removingthe grasslands to begin cultivation. Thefindings in India are supported by an LCA conductedby Dehue and Hettinga (2008) whichfound that total emission reductions declined by only 2.8% to 4.8% when dLUC emissions fromconversion of grasslands to jatropha plantations were included in the base case.Achten et al. (2012) conducted a broader analysis of GHG implications of direct land usechange due to increased jatropha cultivation on global arid and semiarid lands. Conversion ofmarginal lands, including sparse shrubs and herbaceous and bare lands, produced an immediatebenefit to GHG emissions. Jatropha established on previously existing shrublands and forestsresulted in an immediate carbon debt of 24 to 28 tC/ha and 70 to 118 tC/ha, respectively. Torepay these debts, the jatropha must yield 3.5 to 3.9 t seeds/ha/yr for shrublands and 8.6 to 13.9 tof seeds/ha/yr for forests. The literature currently reflects no cases where jatropha productioncould be sustained at such a high level continuously for 30 or more years. Thus, repaying carbondebts is unlikely for previously forested land, butfeasible for marginal sites and shrubland.Unpublished work from Shonnard et al. (2011) specifically studied the relationship betweenjatropha seed yield and GHG emissions, finding increases in emissions per unit of energyproduced when jatropha seed yields decline. These increases were anticipated even after changesin fertilizer use, land cover, and transportation were accounted for.In tropical and subtropical settings, both Bailis and Baka (2010) and Romijn (2011),demonstrated the importance of carbon stock changedue to land conversion. Bailis and Baka(2010) studied jatropha used to make biodiesel jetfuel compared with commercial jet fuel (CJF)in Brazil. When no land use change was included inthe analysis, jatropha oil emissions resultedin 40 kg CO2e per GJ of fuel produced, which is 55% lower thanCJF (12.9 kg CO2per gallon ofbiodiesel produced). When direct land use change isconsidered, the type of land being replacedby jatropha has a large impact on the GHG emissionsof jet fuel made from jatropha. The studyfound that converting annual crop land to jatrophacan have a net increase in carbon stocks andcan have life-cycle GHG emissions 83% less than CJF. However, converting areas likeshrublands can make the jet fuel made from jatrophahave 60% more GHG emissions(approximately 20.5 kg C02per gallon of biodiesel produced). Figure 3-1 displays the resultsfrom the Bailis and Baka (2010) study.3-12Figure 3-1. Direct Land Use Impacts on GHG Emissions from JatrophaSource: Bailis and Baka, 2010Romijn (2011) focused on large-scale jatropha production that would replace miombowoodlands in Central and Eastern Africa. The original analysis, converting relatively pristinewoodlands to jatropha, projected a substantial carbon stock debt with a payback periodexceeding 30 years. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate GHG outcome sensitivity todegraded biomass and depleted soil carbon within the woodlands to be cleared for jatropha tomimic the use of previously degraded woodlands. Degraded biomass may result from illegallogging while depleted soil carbon is associated with woodlands formally in agricultural use andabandoned due to low soil fertility. Scenarios thatincluded only the depletion of biomass (e.g.,aboveground carbon) estimated a net increase in emissions. GHGs were reduced compared witha fossil fuels base case only in scenarios where soil carbon was significantly depleted beforejatropha cultivation, suggesting that soil organiccarbon may play a significant role in conversionof these particular forested lands. The author noted that this was a surprising finding whichmerits further investigation.Achten and Verchot (2011) evaluated five jatropha plantations within the tropics: one inGhana, one in Zambia, and three in Mexico. This study looked at direct and indirect land usechange and found jatropha had replaced everything from cropland to natural forests. For Zambiaand Ghana, iLUC was estimated though household interviews with recent smallholder adopters.Estimates in Brazil were based on a global deterministic modeling study estimating generic3-13bioenergy iLUC factors derived from data for soybean oil, palm oil, and ethanol from wheat andsugarcane (Fritsche et al., 2010). The first case study estimated the carbon debts from clearingland for jatropha production. These carbon debts ranged from 16 to 197 Mg of CO2per acre,while the average was 102 Mg of CO2. Jatropha carbon debts were much lower than thoseestimated for oil palm production but higher than soybean on average, largely because of thetype of land being converted and the expected seedproductivity by region. Much of the oil palmproduction replaced tropical rainforests, comparedwith jatropha’s replacement of a mix oftropical and nontropical forests, croplands, and fallow land and soybean’s replacement ofcroplands and pasture.The study found that only one of the case studies would achieve a net CO2reduction bythe end of the first jatropha rotation (20 years).It was estimated when accounting for direct andindirect land use that three of the case studies may take up to three human generations to payback the carbon debt. Average repayment times for jatropha were between 76 and 310 years.The Mexico case studies from Achten and Verchot (2011) were taken from previouswork in native growingacahualforests by Skutsch et al. (2011). Under the estimation thatjatropha gained back 2.83 tons of CO2per acre per year and depending on the density oftheformer forest, the payback period ranged from 7.8 up to 52.5 years, Higher payback periods wereassociated with the clearing of older (> 25 years)acahualforests and low jatropha yields. Theauthors acknowledge, however, that carbon estimatesare “very rough,” and do not considercarbon stored in litter and woody debris.These studies suggest that jatropha’s sustainability is very dependent on what type ofland is chosen for its growth and what types of inputs are used. Achten et al. (2010a) make thepoint that jatropha, after further study, may not be the global savior for the developing worldmany expected it to be, but it could make sense incertain situations on a more locally focusedlevel.4-1SECTION 4REFERENCESAchten, W. 2010. “Sustainability Evaluation of Biodiesel fromJatropha curcasL.: A Life CycleOriented 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 Assessmentof Jatropha Biodiesel asTransportation Fuel in Rural India.”Applied Energy87(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 AridEnvironments74(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 Domesticationof Jatropha Curcas.”Biofuels1(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 LandConversion to Biofuel Crop Cultivation in Arid andSemi-arid Lands–Lessons Learnedfrom 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-UseChanges for CO2Emissions: Case Studies in Tropical America, Africa, and SoutheastAsia.”Ecology and Society16(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 Bioenergy32(12):1063-1084.doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.03.003.Adriaans, T. 2006. “Sustainability of Solvent Extraction forJatropha curcas.” Prepared forFACT 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 andComposition ofJatropha CurcasOil Seed from Malaysia and its Potential as BiodieselFeedstock Feedstock.”European Journal of Scientific Research29(3): 396-403Almeida, J. 2009. “Generic Life Cycle Assessment ofthe Jatropha Biodiesel System.” PhDdissertation.4-2Almeida, J., W.M.J. Achten, M.P. Duarte, B. Mendes,and B. Muys. 2011. “Benchmarking theEnvironmental Performance of the Jatropha BiodieselSystem through a Generic LifeCycle Assessment.”Environmental Science & Technology45(12):5447-5453.doi:10.1021/es200257m.Axelsson, L. and M. Franzén. 2010. “Performance ofJatropha Biodiesel Production and ItsEnvironmental and Socio-Economic Impacts.” Master’sthesis. Göteborg, Sweden:Chalmers University of Technology.Bailis, R.E. and J.E. Baka. 2010. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Land Use Change fromJatropha Curcas-Based Jet Fuel in Brazil.”Environmental Science & Technology44(22):8684-8691. doi:10.1021/es1019178.Bailis, R.E. and H. McCarthy. 2011. “Carbon Impactsof Direct Land Use Change in SemiaridWoodlands Converted to Biofuel Plantations in Indiaand Brazil.”Global ChangeBiology Bioenergy3:449-460. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01100.x.Beerens, P. and J. van Eijck. 2010. “Oil Pressing and Purification.” InThe Jatropha Handbook:From Cultivation to Application. Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Available at:http://www.snvworld.org/sites/www.snvworld.org/files/publications/fact_foundation_jatropha_handbook_2010.pdf.Brittaine, R., and N. Lutaladio. 2010. Jatropha: ASmallholder Bioenergy Crop—The Potentialfor Pro-Poor Development.Integrated Crop Management. 8: Rome: FAO.Ceasar, S.A., and S. Ignacimuthu. 2011. “Applications of Biotechnology and BiochemicalEngineering for the Improvement of Jatropha and Biodiesel: A Review.”Renewable andSustainable Energy Reviews15(9):5176-5185. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.039.Dehue, B. and W. Hettinga. 2008. “GHG Performance of Jatropha Biodiesel.” Ecofys bv,Utrechy, The Netherlands. Available at:http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ghgperformancejatrophabiodiesel.pdf.Devappa, R.K, H.P.S. Makkar, and K. Becker. 2010. “Jatropha Toxicity—A Review.”Journal ofToxicology and Environmental Health. Part B, Critical Reviews13(6):476-507.doi:10.1080/10937404.2010.499736.Fan, J., R. M. Handler, D.R. Shonnard, and T.N. Kalnes. 2012. “A Review of Life CycleGreenhouse Gas Emissions of Hydroprocessed Jet Fuels from Renewable Oils and Fats.”International Journal of Environmental Science andEngineering Research3(3):114-138.Fritsche, U. R., K. Henneberg, and K. Hünecke. 2010a. The “iLUC Factor” as a means to hedgerisks of GHG emissions from indirect land use change. Öko–Insititut, Darmstadt,Germany. Available at:http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1030/2010-082-en.pdf.The Global Exchange for Social Investment (GEXSI).2008.Global Market Study on Jatropha.Final report. Available at: http://www.jatrophaalliance.org/fileadmin/documents/GEXSI_Global-Jatropha-Study_FULL-REPORT.pdf.4-3Gmünder, M.S., R. Singh, S. Pfister, A. Adheloya, and R. Zah. 2012. “Environmental Impacts ofJatropha curcasBiodiesel 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. “LifeCycle Assessment of Village Electrification based on Straight Jatropha Oil inChhattisgarh, India.”Biomass and Bioenergy(34):347-355.doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.11.006.Henning, R.K. 2000. “TheJatrophabooklet—a guide to theJatrophasystem and itsdissemination in Zambia.” Weissensberg: bagani GbR.Holl, M.A., M.B. Gush, J. Hallowes, and D.B. Versfeld. 2007. “Jatropha curcasin South Africa:An Assessment of it Water Use and Bio-Physical Potential.” Report to the WaterResearch Commission (WRC) on the project “Investigation into the Impacts of LargeScale Planting ofJatropha curcason Water Resources, through Process-Based Researchand 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 fromSoybean, Jatropha and Microalgae in China Conditions.”Renewable and SustainableEnergy Reviews15(9):5081-5091. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.048.Humana People to People India. N.d. “Long term assessment of neutralized and degummedvegetable oil (at higher injection pressure) inconventional high speed diesel engine.”Submitted toThe GAIA-Movement, Geneva, Switzerland.Jongschaap, R.E.E., W.J. Corré, P.S. Bindraban, andW.A. Brandenburg. 2007.Claims andFacts on Jatropha curcas L.GlobalJatropha curcasEvaluation, Breeding andPropagation 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 Productionin Malaysia.”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews16(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 & Technology45(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 CycleAssessment (LCA) of Jatropha Biodiesel Production in India.”Bioresource Technology110:723-729. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.142.4-4Lam, M.K., K.T. Lee, and A.R. Mohamed. 2009. “LifeCycle Assessment for the Production ofBiodiesel: A Case Study in Malaysia for Palm Oil versus Jatropha Oil.”Biofuels,Bioproducts & Biorefining3:601-612. doi:10.1002/bbb.182Lapola, D.M., R. Schaldach, J. Alcamo, A. Bondeau,J. Koch, C. Koelking, and J.A. Priess.2010a. “Indirect Land-use Changes Can Overcome Carbon Savings from Biofuels inBrazil.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107(8):3388-3393.doi:10.1073/pnas.0907318107.Lapola, D.M., R. Schaldach, J. Alcamo, A. Bondeau,J. Koch, C. Koelking, and J.A. Priess.2010b. “Supporting Information for Indirect Land-use Changes Can Overcome CarbonSavings from Biofuels in Brazil.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107(8). Available at:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/02/0907318107/suppl/DCSupplementalLele, S. 2008. “Project Report for Jatropha Plantation.” Excel workbook. Available at:http://www.svlele.com.Maes, W.H., A. Trabucco, W.M.J. Achten, and B. Muys. 2009. “Climatic Growing Conditions ofJatropha curcas L.”Biomass and Bioenergy33(10):1481-1485.doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.06.001.Ndong, R., M. Montrejaud-Vignoles, O. Saint Girons,B. Gabrielles, R. Pirot, M. Dombergue,and C. Sablayrolles. 2009. “Life Cycle Assessment of Biofuels fromJatropha curcasinWest Africa: A Field Study.”GCB Bioenergy1(3):197-210.Ngamprasertsith, S. and R. Sawangkeaw. N.d. “Transesterification in Supercritical Conditions.”InBiodiesel—Feedstocks and Processing Technologies. Available at:http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/23002/InTechTransesterification_in_supercritical_conditions.pdf.Ogunwole, J.O., D.R. Chaudary, A. Ghosh, C.K. Daudu, J. Chikara, and J.S. Patolia. 2008.“Contribution of Jatropha curcas to Soil Quality Improvement in a Degraded IndianEntisol.”Acta Agriculurae Scandinavica: Section B, Soil & Plant Science(58):245-251.doi: 10.1080/09064710701628925Ong, H.C., T.M.I. Mahlia, H.H. Masjuki, and R.S. Norhasyima. 2011. “Comparison of palm oil,Jatropha curcasandCalophyllum inophyllumfor biodiesel: A review.”Renewable andSustainable Energy Reviews8(15):3501-3515. Available at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.05.005.Pandey, K.K., N. Pragya, and P.K. Sahoo. 2011. “Life Cycle Assessment of Small-scale Highinput Jatropha Biodiesel Production in India.”Applied Energy88(12):4831-4839.doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.06.026.Planning Commission, Government of India. April 13,2003. “Report of the Committee onDevelopment of Bio-fuel.” New Delhi, India.4-5Prueksakorn, K. and S.H. Gheewala. 2006. “Energy and Greenhouse Gas Implications ofBiodiesel Production fromJatropha curcasL.” The 2nd Joint International Conferenceon “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 fromJatropha curcas L.in Thailand.”Environmental Science & Technology42(9):3388-3393.doi:10.1021/es7022237.Reinhardt, G., S. Gartner, N. Rettenmaier, J. Munch, and E. von Falkenstein. 2007. “ScreeningLife Cycle Assessment of Jatropha Biodiesel.” Heidelberg, Germany: IFEU–Institute forEnergy 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 Productionand Use.” Heidelberg, Germany: Institute for Energyand Environmental ResearchHeidelberg GmbH.Rettenmaier, N., S. Koppen, S. Gartner, and G. Reinhardt. 2008. “Screening Life CycleAssessment of Hydrotreated Jatropha Oil.” Heidelberg, Germany: Institute for Energyand 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 inAfrican Miombo Woodlands.”Energy Policy39:5751-5762.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.”Science326(5952):527-528. doi:10.1126/science.1178797.Shonnard, D.R., and R.P. Donovan. 2011. “Life CycleAssessments of Hydro-Renewable Jet andDiesel 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 IncipientBiofuel Program.”Ecology and Society16(4):11. doi:10.5751/ES-04448-160411.Srivastava, P., S.K. Behera, J. Gupta, S. Jamil, N.Singh, and Y.K. Sharma. 2011. “GrowthPerformance, Variability in Yield Traits and Oil Content of Selected Accessions ofJatropha curcas L. Growing in a Large Scale Plantation Site.”Biomass and Bioenergy35(9):3936-3942. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.008.4-6Stratton, R.W., H.M. Wong, and J.I. Hileman. 2010.“Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissionsfrom Alternative Jet Fuels.” Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and EmissionReduction Project 28. Cambridge, MA: MassachusettsInstitute of Technology.Trabucco, A., W.M.J. Achten, C. Bowe, R. Aerts, J.Van Orshoven, L. Norgrove, and B. Muys.2010. “Global Mapping of Jatropha Curcas Yield Based on Response of Fitness toPresent and Future Climate.”GCB Bioenergy2(3):139-151. doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01049.x.Wahl, N., R. Jamnadass, H. Baur, C. Munster, M. Iiyama. 2009. “Economic Viability ofJatropha curcas L. Plantations in Northern Tanzania Assessing Farmers Prospects viaCost-Benefit Analysis.” ICRAF Working Paper Number97; World Agroforestry Centre:Nairobi.Wang, H., Y. Chen, Y. Zhao, H. Liu, J. Liu, H.P.S.Makkar, and K. Becker. 2011. “Effects ofReplacing Soybean Meal by DetoxifiedJatropha curcasKernel Meal in the Diet ofGrowing Pigs on Their Growth, Serum Biochemical Parameters and Visceral Organs.”Animal Feed Science and Technology170(1-2):141-146.doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.08.004.Wani, S.P., G. Cander, K.L. Sahrawat, S. Rao, G. Raghvendra, P. Susanna, M. Pavani. 2012.“Carbon Sequestration and Land Rehabilitation throughJatropha curcas(L.) Plantationin Degraded Lands.”Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment161:112-120. doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.07.028.Weyerhaeuser, H, T. Tennigkeit, S. Yufang, and F. Kahr. 2007. “Biofuels in China: An Analysisof the Opportunities and Challenges ofJatropha curcasin Southwest China.” ICRAFWorking Paper Number 53, ICRAF China, Beijing, PR China.Whitaker, M. and G. Heath. 2010.Life Cycle Assessment Comparing the Use of JatrophaBiodiesel in the Indian Road and Rail Sectors. National Renewable Energy Laboratory(NREL) Technical Report NREL/TP-6A2-47462.Whitaker, M. and G. Heath. 2009.Life Cycle Assessment of the Use of Jatropha Biodiesel inIndian Locomotives. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Technical Report.NREL/TP-6A2-44428.Wiskerke, W. 2008. “Towards a Sustainable Biomass Energy Supply for Rural Households inSemi-arid Shinyanga, Tanzania.” Utrecht University:Department of Science, Technologyand Society.Xunmin, O., Z. Xiliang, C. Siyan, and G. Gingfang.2009. “Energy Consumption and GHGEmissions of Six Biofuel Pathways by LCA in (the) People’s Republic of China.”Applied Energy86:S197-S208. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.045.