### September 2012



# GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature Review and Synthesis

DRAFT 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, Blaire Zachary, and Robert Beach RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

RTI Project Number 0 20 13142.000.005_________________________________ RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute

. RTI Project Number 0 2013142.000.005



# GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature Review and Synthesis

DRAFT REPORT

September 2012

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, Blaire Zachary, and Robert Beach RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709iii CONTENTS

Section Page

1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 1

- 1

2 Jatropha Production Characteristics

................................ ................................ .............. 2

- 1

2.1 Dry Seed Yield

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 2

- 1

2.2 Oil Content of Seeds

................................ ................................ ............................ 2

- 4

2.3 Bi odiesel Yields

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2

- 4

2.4 Climate Conditions and Productivity

................................ ................................ ... 2

- 5

2.5 Inputs: Fertilizer

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2

- 8

2.6 Inpu ts: Irrigation

................................ ................................ ................................ 2

- 10

2.7 Production Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ 2

- 11

2.8 Land Competition and Opportunity Costs

................................ ......................... 2

- 11

2.9 Seed Crushing, Oil Extraction, Pre

- Treatment, and Processing

........................ 2

- 12

2.10 Co

- Products

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2

- 14

3 Net Effects on GHG Emissions

................................ ................................ .................... 3

- 1

3.1 Carbon Storage

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3

- 1

3.2 Energy U se

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3

- 1

3.3 Net Energy Ratio

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3

- 4

3.4 Life

- Cycle Assessment (LCA)

................................ ................................ ............. 3

- 4

3.5 Land use impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3

- 6

4 References

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4

- 1iv LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page

2

- 1. Observed Yields over Time in Malaysia (metric tons per ha)

................................ ...... 2

- 1 2

- 2. Seed Yield by Study Year

................................ ................................ ............................. 2

- 3 2

- 3. Trabucco et al. (2010) Productivity of Jatropha by Climate Zone

............................... 2

- 6 2

- 4. Predicted Jatropha Productivity Based on Geographic Location

................................ . 2

- 7 2

- 5. Inputs for Extracting Crude Jatropha Oil From Dry Seeds

................................ ......... 2

- 14 2

- 6. Inputs for Biodiesel Production

................................ ................................ .................. 2

- 14 2

- 7. Nutrient Contents of Jatropha Seedcake and Husk

................................ ..................... 2

- 16 2

- 8. The Byproducts of Jatropha Oil Extraction and Their Uses

................................ ....... 2

- 17

3

- 1. Energy Requirements for Jatropha Jet Fuel (SPK).

................................ ...................... 3

- 3 3

- 2. D irect Land Use Impacts on GHG Emissions from Jatropha

................................ ....... 3

- 6 3

- 3. CO 2 Reduction Rate by Yield

................................ ................................ ....................... 3

- 7v LIST OF TABLES

Number Page

1

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

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 1

- 2

2

- 1. Jatropha Seed Yields

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 2

- 2 2

- 2. Oil Content of Jatropha Seeds

................................ ................................ ....................... 2

- 4 2

- 3. NPK Fertilizer Application

................................ ................................ ........................... 2

- 9 2

- 4. Irrigation Requirements

................................ ................................ .............................. 2

- 11 2

- 5. Methods of Oil Extraction

................................ ................................ .......................... 2

- 12 2

- 6. Biodiesel Yields From Crude Jatropha Oil Through Transesterification

................... 2

- 13

3

- 1. Net Energy Ratio (NER) of Jatropha

................................ ................................ ............ 3

- 4 3

- 2. Change in GHG Emissions Reported in Studies that Do Not Include Significant Indirect Emissions Such as Emissions from Land Use Changes

................................ .. 3

- 51

- 1 SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION

As global interest in biofuels increased in recent years, jatropha was touted as a potential
biofuels feedstock that would grow well on marginal lands, requiring only low levels of inputs and management. Jatropha plantations were supported by multiple governments (with India having one of the largest efforts) and non

- governmental organizations (NGOs) for t he purposes of biofuels production and large areas of land were planted to jatropha. However, field experience has shown that jatropha does indeed require active management and inputs such as fertilizer and irrigation in order to achieve high enough yields to be profitable based on the available literature that we reviewed. Research demonstrates that marginal lands typically produce poor yields and that the highest yields come from more productive lands and more intensive production practices. This is consi stent with historical experience with production of other crops, but means that jatropha production is more likely to compete for land used to produce alternative crops than was originally anticipated.

One of the key reasons for recent interest in large

- s cale biofuels production is the potential reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) provided by these fuels in comparison with fossil fuels. However, the net effect on GHG emissions is dependent on many factors and varies considerably across feedstocks. Thus, i t is important to conduct life cycle assessments (LCAs) of the use of alternative feedstocks for biofuels production to provide a full picture of the net effects of each feedstock. While biofuels produced from jatropha could potentially reduce GHG, the ful l impacts of jatropha production are still being measured. While there have been some studies that begin exploring the effects of expanded jatropha production, LCAs that study potential emissions of jatropha biofuels from “well to wheel” are still underway . In addition, many of these LCAs do not include direct or indirect land use change from jatropha cultivation, although those emissions often play an extremely important role in determining changes in net GHG associated with biofuels production from a give n feedstock. Some recent studies that do include these measures show that jatropha may not produce net reductions in GHG emissions in the first cycle of jatropha planting (30 years) depending on the land type converted and other characteristics (Bailis and Baka, 2010 ; Achten and Verchot, 2011 ; Skutsch et al. , 2011 ).

The remainder of this literature review and synthesis will summarize our technical findings on jatroph a 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. Over 70 studies were reviewed to conduct this report. There were 27 of these studies that were found to be very1

- 2

relevant in assessing the potential of jatropha biofuels. Table 1

- 1 provides a brief overview of these relevant studies that helped inform the c ontents of this literature review.

Table 1

- 1. Most Relevant Studies Regarding Jatropha Chara c teristics and Net GHG

Emissions

Study Study Focus Study Area Marginal or Productive Lands
Achten & 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 & genetics Global Both

Achten et al. (2008) Seed yield, oil production Nicaragua & Central America Both

Almeida (2009) LCA Geographically Independent Both

Almeida et al. (2011) LCA Location independent Both
Axelsson & Franzen ( 201 0 ) Socio

- economics India Both
Bailis & Baka (2010) LCA

- jet fuel, land use included Brazil Productive

Britaine & Lutaladio (2010) Overview Global Both

GEXSI (2008) Overview Global Both

Hou et al. (2011) LCA China Productive Joongschaap et al. (2007) Overview Global Both

Kumar et al. (2012) LCA India Rain

- fed and irrigated scenarios

Maes et al. (2009) Climate Mexico and Central America 241 naturally growing locations and 83 plantations Ndong et al. (2009) LCA Ivory Coast & Mali, West Africa Both

Pandey, Pragya, and Sahoo (2011) LCA India Productive

Prueksakorn & Gheewala (2006) LCA Thailand Productive

Prueksakorn & Gheewala (2008) Net Energy Ratio (NER) Thailand Productive

Reinhardt et al. (2007) LCA India Marginal

Reinhardt et al. (2008) Yields, inputs, & byproducts India Marginal1

- 3

Study Study Focus Study Area Marginal or Productive Lands

Skutsch et al. (2011) Land use, Socioeconomics Mexico Productive

Srivastrava et al. (2011) Yield India Productive Stratton, Wong, & Hileman (2010) LCA

- jet fuel Global Both

Trabucco et al. (2010) Climate, yield Global 259 naturally growing locations and 15 plantations Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) Economics Southwest China Both
Whitaker & Heath (2009) LCA India Productive
Wiskerke (2008) Economics Shinyanga, Tanzania Marginal2

- 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 upon the yield obtained. Jatropha produces seeds which 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 8 th year of cultivation (Achten et al. 2008), but most studies consider jatropha to be mature by the 4 th or 5 th year. Figure 2

- 1 shows how jatropha seed yield observed in Malaysia has changed as the jatropha plant matured.

Figure 2

- 1

. Observed Yields over Time in Malaysia (metric tons per ha)

Source: Kalam, Ahamed, & Masjuki (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 tonnes 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, Achten (2010) finds that marginal lands typically produce between 2

- 3 t/ha, whereas fertile lands that receive adequate rainfall can achieve average yields of 5 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. Rain fed jatropha was found to have an average yield of 1.5 t/ha/yr while irrigated jatropha could range
from 2.5 to 12.5 t/ha/yr. The Kumar study used an average yield of 5.9 t/ha/yr for irrigated2

- 2

jatropha plantations for its life cycle analysis. A biodiesel company in Mexico claims it will achieve a yield of 11 tons per hectare per year (Skutsch et al. 2011 ) and a low scale, high input farm in India expects an average yield of 11.3 t/ha/yr once the jatropha trees reach five years of

age (Pandey et al. 2011 )

. Table 2

- 1 summarizes yields that were either observed in the fiel d or
assumed for jatropha LCAs. Trabucco et al. (2010) reviewed yields from 15 jatropha plantation across the globe. The average expected mature seed yield was 1. 73 t/ha/yr, however yields ranged from 0. 30 to 4. 00 t/ha/yr. Tra bucco et al. (2010) also finds that under climate change projection s out to 2020

, jatropha yields would decrease by 11%. Because there is only a short time series of historical jatropha yield data and the values reported have high variability, many of the LCAs used high, baseline, and low yield scenarios for jatropha yields to account for this
variation.

Table 2

- 1

. Jatropha Seed Yields

Yield (metric ton per hectare per year)

Study Location Observed or Assumed Marginal or

Productive Low High Average* Jongschaap et al. (2007) Global Observed Both 1.50 7.80 Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) Southwest China Observed Marginal 1.70 2.20

Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) Southwest China Observed Productive 3.90 7.50

Wiskerke (2008) Tanzania Observed Marginal 2.00

Achten et al. (2008) Nicaragua Observed Productive 4.00

Whitaker and Heath (2009) India Assumed Productive 3.75

Almeida (2009) Geographically Independent Assumed Productive 4.29

Achten (2010) India Observed Marginal 1.70

Bailis & Baka (2010) Brazil Assumed Productive 2.00 6.00 4.00 Stratton, Wong, & Hileman (2010) Geographically Independent Assumed Productive 1.00 5.00 2.50

Trabucco et al. (2010) Central & South America, Africa, India, & Indonesia Observed Both 0.3 4 1.73

Achten & 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 5.002

- 3 Yield (metric ton per hectare per year)

Study Location Observed or Assumed Marginal or

Productive Low High Average*

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

Axelsson & Franzen ( 201 0 ) 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

* Or the assumed average value of seed yield for the study

Across study years, reported seed yield has seen a slight upward trend as Figure 2

- 2 demonstrates. This may be attributable to the fact that study began on jatropha before jatropha plantations had reached maturity. In addition, as jatropha i s used more as a domesticated crop rather than a wild species, information regarding the necessary inputs and management may have helped improve yields over time. However, the quality of land used and level of inputs used still appear to be the largest det erminants of seed yield.

Figure 2

- 2. Seed Yield by Study Year

Source: Seed Yield data from Table 2. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Seed Yield (t/ha/yr)

Seed Yield
Trendline (Seed Yield)2

- 4

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 a global average of 30%

- 35% of oil content in jatropha seeds. Literature studying jatropha plantations and assumptions made by LCAs are in general agree ment with this assessment. Table 2

- 2 shows the oil content of jatropha seeds as observed in the literature.

Table 2

- 2

. Oil Content of Jatropha Seeds

Oil Content (%)

Study Location Observed or Assumed Marginal or

Productive Low High Average Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) China Observed Both 30 41
GEXSI (2008) Global Observed Both 30 35

Whitaker and Heath (2009) India Assumed Productive 35

Brit t aine (2010) Global Observed Both 32 40 34
Achten (2010) Global Observed Both 27 40 34 Stratton, Wong, & Hileman (2010) Global Assumed Productive 35

Srivastrava et al. (2011) India Observed Both 17 34 Pandey et al. (2011) India Observed Productive 38

Hou et al. (2011) China Observed Productive 27 47 30

Kumar et al. (2012) India Observed Productive 21 48 39

2.3 Biodiesel Yields
The seed yield and oil content of jatropha affect the quantity of biodiesel that a jatropha planation can yield. Biofuel yield is very dependent upon the inputs as well as the type of land upon which the jatropha is grown. In Southwest China, jatropha grown on barren land produc ed from 37 to 86 gallons per acre per year 1 (0.3 to 0.7 tons per hectare per year) of biodiesel, while fertile lands could produce 86 to 306 gallons per acre (0.7 to 2.5 t/ha/yr) (Weyerhaeuser et al.
2007 ). On marginal land in India, jatropha biodiesel had a yield as low as 13 gallons per acre per year (0.11 t/ha/yr) (Achten 2010 a ). For the LCA performed by NREL (Whitaker & Heath 2009 ), they assumed a biofuel yield of 147 gallons per acre per year (1.2 t/ha/yr). However, on fertile and actively managed land, biofuel yields can be much higher. In Thailand, yield was measured

1 Converted from the values reported by the authors (generally in metric tons per hectare) using a conversion factor of 7.3 pounds per gallon of biodiesel and converting from hectares to acres.2

- 5

to be 330 gallons per acre (2.7 t/ha/yr) (Prueksakorn & Gheewala 2008 ). Skuts ch et al. (2011) found in Mexico that a high

- input and high

- yield farm could produce 416 gallons per acre (3.4 t/ha/yr) by year six of the jatropha plantation. Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010) found jatropha biofuel yields per hectare to be lower than other biofuel feedstocks such as switchgrass, soybeans, and sugarcane.

2.4 Climate Conditions and Productivity
The climatic conditions where jatropha is grown can dramatically impact yields. When looking at naturally occurring non

- domesticated jatropha in Mexico and Central America, Maes (2009) found that 87% of jatropha grew in tropical savannah, temperate, or monsoon climates. A very small number was found in semi

- arid cl imates and no naturally growing jatropha was found in arid climates (Maes 2009 ). These findings are in sharp contrast to some of the locations that have been chosen for jatropha plantations, which have often tried to grow jatropha on arid and
semi

- arid lands, including Strivastrava et al. (2011) and Wiskerke (2008)

.

Trabucco et al. (2010) studied naturally occurring jatropha as well as 15 observed plant ations and found that yield could largely be explained based on the climate zone (see Figure
2

- 3 ). Jongschaap et al. (2007) stated the “jatropha belt” exists between the latitudes of 30 degrees North and 35 degrees South. Based on the jatropha predicted productivity map (see Figure 2

- 4 ), it can be assumed that the most ideal regions for jatropha growth are India, Southeast Asi a, equatorial Africa, and parts of Central and South America.2

- 6

Figure 2

- 3. Trabucco et al. (2010) Productivity of Jatropha by Climate Zone2

- 7

Figure 2

- 4. Predicted Jatropha Productivity Based on Geographic Location

Source: T rabucco et al. (2010)

Jatropha can grow in a variety of temperature ranges within limits. Stratton, Wong, & Hileman (2010) and many others have found jatropha to be frost intolerant. Fr ost can cause immediate damage to the tree. Therefore, Trabucco et al. (2010) assumes that the average minimum temperature of the coldest month in the year must not drop below 46 to 48 degrees Fahrenheit (8 to 9 degrees Celsiu s). Maes (2009) finds that among naturally growing jatropha, 95% grew in areas where the average temperature of the coldest month was 51 degrees Fahrenheit (10.5 degrees Celsius) or higher. The study also found the optimal range for jat ropha growth was an area with a mean annual temperature between 74 and 79 degrees Fahrenheit (23.4 and 26.2 degrees Celsius). Terrain does not appear to be a major factor in jatropha cultivation.
Achten et al. (2008) does sugges t that slope of jatropha plantation should not be greater than 30 degrees. In general, jatropha has been found to prefer well

- drained soils that have good aeration (Wahl et al. 2009 ) as the crop does not react well to water logging. Achten et al. (2008) also suggest soil depth should be at least 18 inches (45 cm).

Jatropha has been shown to survive under low rainfall; however, to produce yields more
suita ble 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 with average annual rainfall above 37.2 inches (94.4 cm). The optimal range set by this study for jatropha 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 0.22,2

- 8

though there were cases of higher yields with low precipitation and lower yields in higher precipitation. This supports the hypo thesis that rainfall does impact jatropha yields, but there are
other factors.

2.5 Inputs : Fertilizer
Several studies found that farmers had to actively manage their jatropha plantation and use fertilizers, chemicals, and irrigation to obtain adequate yiel ds. Fertilizer use is needed because jatropha has been found to remove nutrients from the soil and fertilizer is a method in which to return those nutrients to the soil so jatropha can grow (Achten 2010 ). Fertilizer use varied among the studies. The most popular fertilizer was a mix of nitrogen, phosphorus (P 2 0 5 ) and potassium (K 2 0), otherwise known as NPK. The reported use of fertilizer was given in several different terms, shown in Table 2

- 3 for each study providing information on fert ilizer application.

Most studies found that fertilizer was required to ensure jatropha growth during the early years. Several studies found that NPK could be replaced by the seedcake byproduct after the jatropha had reached maturity. This NPK replacement is addressed later in the Co

- Products section of the report. Ndong et al. (2009) found the first three years to be crucial for NPK application, in the fourth year NPK and ammonitrate was applied and by the 5 th year jatropha bypro ducts sufficed as fertilizer. Whitaker & 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 fertili zer 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 & Baka 2010 ).

In economic studies, fertilizer was found to account for 23%

- 31% of input costs (Axelsson & Franzen, 2010 ). In Tanzania, W ahl et al. (2009) found fertilizer to cost 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
- 9 Table 2

- 3

. NPK Fertilizer Ap plication

Pounds of Fertilizer Used

Study Location Observed or Assumed Marginal or

Productive N P K N:P:K (15:15:15) Other Unit Notes

Achten et al. (2008) West Africa Observed Both 12.8

- 30.6 12.8

- 28.2 For a yield of 1 ton
per acre

Reinhardt et al. (2008) India Observed Marginal 42.8 17 47.3 per acre per year

Prueksakorn & Gheenwala (2008) Thailand Observed Productive 688.9 per year

Almeida (2009) Global Both Both 66.9 20.5 44.6 per acre per year

Whitaker & Heath (2009) India Assumed Productive 74.9 30.3 83.9 per acre per year

Bailis & Baka (2010) Brazil Observed Productive 74.9 30.3 83.9 0.8 t/acre of lime per acre per year

Stratton, Wong, & Hileman (2010) Global Assumed Productive 0.034 0.013 0.037 per pound of seed

Pandey et al. (2011) India Observed Productive 50 million pounds of Urea for total nursery stage) DAP: 0.04 lbs. cow dung: 0.45 lbs. per plant after

nursery stage

Hou et al. (2011) China Observed Productive 42.8 11.9 7.9

Almeida et al. (2011) Global Assumed Both 1.46 0.73 1.46 per 1 gallon of Biodiesel Produced2

- 10

2.6 I nputs: Irrigation
Water usage for jatropha has been higher than previously expected. While 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 profi table biofuel production. Table 2

- 4 displays the water requirements found throughout the literature. In an economic study of jatropha plantations, irrigation accounted for 66%

- 79% of all inputs for cultivation ( Axelsson & Franzen, 2010 ). Wahl et al. (2009) found 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 literat ure shows that irrigation can have a large impact on yield. Achten et al. (2008) found that while 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 three years, including
Whitaker & Heath (2009) and Stratton, Wong, & 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 p er hectare) 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 was required per acre per year. On marginal land in India, Achten (2010) observed that irrigation was practiced only when the monsoon was late t hat 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 two 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 plants per hectare) (Pandey et al. 2011 ).

Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2008) found that 98 inches (250 cm) of rainfall per year was
suff icient for jatropha to not require irrigation. For the NREL study of jatropha biofuel used in Indian trains, Whitaker & 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 wa s 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) ass umed that 20, 498 gallons (0.53 m 3 ) of irrigated water was required per 1 gallon of biodiesel that was produced.2

- 11

Table 2

- 4

. Irrigation Requirements

Study Location Observed or Assumed Marginal or

Productive Irrigation

Prueksakorn & Gheenwala (2006) Thailand Observed Productive 123,157 gallons per acre per year

Whitaker & Heath (2009) India Assumed Productive 44 inches per year

Ndong et al. (2009) West Africa Observed Both 24.7 gallons per acre (nursery stage)
Achten (2010) India Observed Marginal 1,604 gallons per acre per year (only when monsoon is late) Pandey et al. (2011) India Observed Productive 4,009 gallons per acre per year (2.64 gallons per plant)

Almeida et al. (2011) Global Assumed Both 21,676 gallons per 1 gallon of Biodiesel produced

2.7 Production Costs
All of these inputs (irrigation, fertilizer, and agrochemicals) contribute to the overall production costs of using jatropha for biodiesel. A few jatropha studies evaluated these production costs. When jatropha was grown on productive lands in Tanzania, av erage annual production costs (including opportunity costs) were estimated to be 95 USD per acre in the first year and 82 USD per acre per year by maturity at year five (Wahl et al. 2009 ). Several input
costs were found to decline o nce jatropha plants reached maturity because inputs for irrigation, fertilizer, and weeding were reduced. A majority of the farmers surveyed in Tanzania considered jatropha to be a high

- input crop and required active management. These annual production cos ts compare with Rijssenbeek et al. (2007) who found annual production costs in India to be about 81 USD per acre per year and in China these costs were 162 USD per acre per year.

Another study of Tanzania jatropha found th at to produce 1 pound of dry seeds it cost 0.05 USD in production costs. Harvesting accounted for 80% of the production costs while weeding and applying manure accounted for 12% and 4%, respectively (Wiskerke 2008 ). Weyerhaeuser et al

. (2007) also analyzed the cost of producing 1 pound of seed in southwestern
China and found that cost to be between 0.15 and 0.66 USD.

2.8 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 pla nted with jatropha2

- 12

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 towards more fertile lands such as shrubland and agricultural la nd. However, our literature review did not find studies that specifically discussed significant replacement of other agricultural crops. Many studies observed jatropha plantations occurring on marginal land or land that was not previously used for agricult ure.

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, b eans, 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 ). Skutcsh et al. (2011) found that in Mexico jatropha was replacing
acahaul forest land which could impact whether or not jatropha biofuels would decrease GHG emissions. Therefore, the literature does show some jatropha production on existing agricultural lands, but the extent to which this would be expected to occur remains uncertain and would require further research. Many of the LCAs that have been developed to date focused on land that was not previously used for agricultural production.

2.9 Seed Crushin g, Oil Extraction , Pre

- Treat ment, and Processing
The first step in creating biodiesel from jatropha involves extracting the oil from dried jatropha seeds. There are three ways to perform oil extraction: manual ram pressing, mechanical screw pressing, and solvent extraction using hexa ne. Table 2

- 5 demonstrates the extraction efficiencies of these three methods. Manual pressing of seeds can be done by farmers and on a local scale while mechanical pressing and solvent extraction require a centralized processing

center. Figure 2

- 5 also de monstrates the hexane requirements for solvent extraction. While manual pressing has a lower extracting efficiency it can greatly reduce the transportation requirements for biodiesel processing. The literature shows that centralized processing requires

mor e energy and thus higher GHG emissions compared to decentralized processing (Almeida et
al. 2009 ).

Table 2

- 5

. Methods of Oil Extraction

Extraction Method Extraction Efficiency (%)

Manual Ram Press 60

- 65

Mechanical Screw Press 75

- 80 Solvent Extraction (using hexane) 95

- 99

Source s: Achten (2010 a ) , Axelsson & Franzén ( 201 0 )

, and Bailis & Baka (2010)2

- 13

These three processes create crude jatropha oil. The literature shows that often farmers or early processors will perform some type of pre

- treatment before the crude oil is converted into a biodiesel. A popular form of pre

- treatment is degumming which invo lves heating the oil and adding phosphoric acid and water. This depletes the phosphorus content. Then the oil is heated once more and treated with sodium hydroxide which neutralizes the free fatty acids in the oil (Almeida et al. 2009 ). Another pre

- treatment option was used in Brazil, where jatropha oil was

pre

- treated with NaOH which lowers the oil’s free fatty acids. Crude jatropha oil was found to require 26.5 pounds per ton of NaOH (Bailis & Baka 2010 ).

Crude jatropha oil can be used in diesel engines but it is thick and tough on diesel engines and may require engine modification. In order to make jatropha oil into a more readily usable biodiesel, a process called transesterification is used. Transes terification is a process in which a catalyst is used to reduce the viscosity of the oil and make it more compatible for use in diesel engines. In essence the transesterification process takes a straight vegetable oil and converts it
into a biodiesel. Jatr opha biodiesel created through the transesterification process is referred to as jatropha oil methyl ester or JME. Table 2

- 6 shows the observed biodiesel yields from jatropha oil through the transesterification process.

Table 2

- 6

. Biodiesel Yields From Crude Jatropha Oil Through Transesterification

Study Conversion Efficiency (%)

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

Another type of oil processing used for jatropha oil, especially when using jatropha for use in commercial jets, is called hydrotreating. According to Stratton, Wong & Hileman (2010)

, hyd r otreating is used to, “deoxygenate the oil with subsequent hydrocracking to create hydrocarbons that fill the distillation range of jet fuel.” Hydrotreated jat r opha oil is referred to as HVO, or hydrotreated vegetable oil. In a study comparing the GHG emissions of HVO versus JME, Rettenmaier et al. (2008) found that JME had slightly better reductions in GHG emissions, but overall their results were comparable. HVO requires processing of crude jatropha oil at a centralized processing location which may not be as accessible to some j atropha farmers and biodiesel producers. SPK, a type of hydrotreated jet fuel, was found to have a yield of 0.48 pounds per 1 pound of jatropha oil (Bailis & Baka 2010 ). Figure 2

- 5 shows the required inputs2

- 14

used for oil extractio n while Figure 2

- 6 demonstrates the required inputs for biodiesel production from transesterification from a LCA of Indian jatropha processing.

Figure 2

- 5. Inputs for Extracting Crude Jatropha Oil From Dry Seeds

Source: Whitaker & Heath (2009)
Figure 2

- 6. Inputs for Biodiesel Production

Source: Kumar et al. (2012) Note: Tons listed in this figure are metric tons. KPTA stands for kilotonnes per annum.

2.10 Co

- Products
Jatropha can produce many different byproducts. However, due to 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 byproducts ha s a high2

- 15

protein content that makes it attractive as an animal feed (Devappa et al. 2010 ). However, this meal contains phorbal 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 effect s in pigs, in addition to fish and turkeys. These studies demonstrate the potential to use byproducts of jatropha for animal feed, but it will require the process of detoxification which may be a more difficult process in the developing world where the maj ority of jatropha is harvested.

The literature suggests that the most important and useable byproducts of jatropha plantations are seedcake, fruit husks, and the biomass of the trees. Seedcake is formed by the remains of seeds after they have been pressed for oil. Almeida et al. (2009) found that for each ton of oil extracted from dry seeds, 2.639 tons of seedcake was produced. Seedcake has high nutrient properties and in many studies it was able to replace the use of fertilize rs when applied
to the land. Devappa et al. (2010) found that the toxic phorbol esters of the jatropha seed cake degrade in soil in a maximum of nine days making it a viable fertilizing option. This process can help reduce GHG emissions that come from fertilizer application. In the Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2008) study 1 pound of jatropha seedcake was assumed to equal 0.15 pound of NPK fertilizer. Seedcake is also shown to have an N:P:K pr oportion of 40:20:10 (Whitaker & Heath
2009 ). Figure 2

- 7 shows the fertilizing properties of jatropha byproducts. Seedcake, along with husks, can be packaged into pellets of briquettes and burned directly for energy (Bailis & Baka
201 0 ). A few studies reviewed even used seedcake for biogas production. Almeida (2009) assumed that 1 pound of seedcake could produce 4.73 gallons of biogas.2

- 16

Figure 2

- 7. Nutrient Contents of Jatropha Seedcake and Husk

Source: Bailis & Baka (2010)

Many of the LCAs also found value in the biomass from pruning the trees throughout cultivation and using the wood from the tree after the end of its productive lifetime for oil productio n (often assumed to be 20

- 30 years). NREL (Whitaker & Heath 2009 ) indicated that based on personal communication with the Indian Oil Corporation, they used biomass yields of 5.5 pounds per tree in the first year, 9.9 pounds per tree i n the second year and an average of 18.7 pounds of biomass per mature tree. In a life cycle analysis of jatropha in China, Hou et al. (2011) assumed a biomass yield of 5,000 tons per hectare of jatropha. Most of the LCAs reviewed
i ncluded biomass and assumed it was burned for electricity use. Figure 2

- 8 d emonstrates the creation and uses of jatropha byproducts.2

- 17

Figure 2

- 8. The Byproducts of Jatropha Oil Extraction and Their Uses

Source: Stratton, Wong & Hileman (2010 )3

- 1 SECTION 3
NET EFFECTS ON GHG E MISSIONS

This section focuses primarily on the results presented in studies that specifically addressed GHG emissions from jatropha production, including both those that provided information on specific components of net emissions as well as those that present an L CA.

3.1 Carbon Storage
While wild jatropha can have a lifetime of 30 to 50 years (Achten 2010c ), most analysis of jatropha plantations have assumed a lifetime of 20 years (Almeida 2009 ). The relatively long produc tive life of the perennial jatropha crop can help store more carbon in the soil relative to an annual crop as well as sequestering carbon in the plant biomass. This has led many to believe that jatropha cultivation may be able to earn carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or other international or bilateral agreements.

Reinhardt et al. (2007) found that in the first 3.5 years of jatropha cultivation on marginal lands in India, soils accumulated about 0.4 tC per acre per year. Other studies have used much higher figures; for example, Srivastrava et al. (2011) observed carbon stored in the soil at a rate of 2.2 tC/acre/yr. Axelsson & Franzen ( 2010 ) estimated the range of annual carbon sequestration based on plantations in Egypt and India to be from 0.06 tC/acre/yr to 2.25 tC/acre/yr. The biomass of jatropha plantations can store carbon as well. In Mexico jatropha plantations were
estimated to have a biomass carbon stock of 1.6 tons of CO 2 e per acre (moderate assumption) or
4.04 tons of CO 2 e per acre (optimal assumption) by the tenth year assuming no pruning had taken place (Skutsch et al. 2011 ).

Whether or not these carbon effects attribute to a net reduction in GHG emissions depends largely on the previous land use. Achten (2010) found that average stock of carbon stored in jatropha per hectare was almost identical to the carbon stored in the gr asslands that had previously covered the study area. Essentially, the carbon gains of jatropha canceled out the carbon losses of removing the grasslands in order to begin cultivation.

3.2 Energy Use
To determine the full LCA GHG emissions, the energy requ ired to produce biodiesel from jatropha must be measured. When looking at the total energy consumption of using jatropha for biodiesel, transesterification accounted for 61% of all energy consumption, while cultivation only accounted for 12% in a study of jatropha in West Africa (Ndong et al. 2009)

. Prueksaskorn & Gheenwala (2006) studied a jatropha plantation in Thailand and found energy3

- 2

use to be 0.03 MWh per gal of biodiesel produced. 40% o f total energy was consumed during transesterification, 23% was used for irrigation, and fertilizer accounted for 22% of total energy use. Transesterification requires more energy consumption due to its use of methanol.

A study of the first five 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 one 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 th at the energy required to produce biodiesel from jatropha used 88% less non

- renewable energy than a diesel fuel reference case. Figure 3

- 1 shows the exact energy requirement s to convert jatropha into biodie sel jet fuel based on Stratton, Wong, & Hileman (2010)

.3

- 3

Figure 3

- 1. Energy Requirements for Jatropha Jet Fuel (SPK).

Source: Stratton, Wong, & Hileman (2010)3

- 4

3.3 Net Energy Ratio
Another way to examine jatropha’s potent ial 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. A NER of 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 biofu els such as palm oil (Achten 2010 ). Several studies demonstrated that when co

- products such as biomass and seedcake were utilized for energy the NER could be as high as 6.03 (Prue k s a korn &
Gheenwala 2008 ). Ndong et al. (2009) also calculated a high NER of 4.7 if jatropha byproducts were included. Most of these studies looked at the capability of jatropha over twenty years while the Pandey et al. (2011) s tudy focused on just the first five years. Table 3

- 1 shows values for jatropha biodiesel NER found in the literature, not accounting for coproducts.

Table 3

- 1. Net Energy Ratio (NER) of Jatropha

Study NER Without Byproducts
Prueksakorn & Gheenwala (2008) 1.42

Reinhardt et al. (2008) 1.80
Almeida (2009) 1.42

Whitaker & Heath (2009) 1.90
Achten (2010) 1.35 Pandey et al. (2011) 1.77

Kumar et al. (2012)

– rain fed scenario 1.40

Kumar et al. (2012)

– irrigated scenario 1.70

3.4 Life

- Cycle A ssessment (LCA)
While every LCA makes varying assumptions to come to its conclusions about the total impact of jatropha biodiesel on the environment, the most important difference between the current LCAs in the literature is typically in their accounting for land use cha nge (direct and/or indirect). The LCAs that do not include land use change can provide some insight into the GHG emissions of using jatropha for biodiesel rather than standard diesel fuel. However, studies show that when land use is taken into account, the full impact of jatropha on net GHG emissions is more complicated. As shown in Table 3

- 2 , the LCAs that did not account for land use all found jatropha biodiesel to result in a net reduction in GHG emissions ranging from 40 to 80 percent
relative to conven tional diesel.3

- 5

Table 3

- 2. Change in GHG Emissions Reported in Studies that Do Not Include

Significant Indirect Emissions Such as Emissions from Land Use Changes

Study Percent Change in Emissions Compared with Conventional Diesel Fuel

Prueksakorn & Gheenwala (2006)

- 77 Ndong et al. (2009)

- 72

Whitaker & Heath (2009)

- 62 Stratton, Wong, & Hileman (2010)

- 45
Achten (2010)

- 55

Hou et al. (2011)

- 80

Almeida et al. (2011)

- 51

Kumar et al. (2012)

– rain fed scenario

- 40

Kumar et al. (2012)

– irrigated scenario

- 54

A range of CO 2 equivalent emissions per 1 gallon of biodiesel produced were found in the literature: 3,441 g CO 2 e in the Ndong et al. (2009) study of jatropha in West Africa and 5,789 g CO 2 e when using jatropha for jet fuel (Stratton, Wong, & Hileman 2010 ). Kumar et al. (2012) found that production of one ton of biodiesel under the irrigated scenario resulted in 1,334 kg of
CO 2 emissions while the rain fed scenario resulted in emissions of 1,768 kg of CO 2 per ton of biodiesel produced. While GHG emissions from jatropha are sensitive to yields, Almeida et al. (2011) found that when yield was varied, GHG emission s 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.

The majority of GHG emissions from producing jatropha are from nitrous ox ide (N 2 0) emissions. The primary source of N 2 0 from agricultural production, including jatropha production, is fertilizer application. Many of the LCAs cited emissions from the use of fertilizer as the highest contributor to jatropha GHG emissions. Our rev iew 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 byproducts for biogas.

Other factors besides GHG emission s should be taken into account to determine the full environmental impact. LCA studies such as Achten (2010) and Hou et al. (2011) found that jatropha causes acidification and eutrophication to increase in the soil. Achten (2010) found this impact to be 430% higher than the reference diesel fuel system. Hou et al. (2011) even suggests3

- 6

that these additional environmental impacts may negate the GHG emissions reductio ns from jatropha.

3.5 Land use impacts
Three studies were found to account for land use change: Bailis & Baka 2010 , Achten &
Verchot 2011 , and Skutsch et al. 2011 . Bailis & Baka (2010) studied jatropha used to make biodiesel jet fuel compared to commercial jet fuel (CJF) in Brazil. When no land use change was included in the analysis, jatropha oil emissions result in 40 kg CO 2 e per GJ of fuel produced

, which is 55% lower than CJF (12.9 kg CO 2 per gallon of biodiesel produced). W hen direct land use change is considered

, the type of land being replaced by jatropha has a large impact on the GHG emissions of jet fuel made from jatropha. The study found tha t converting annual crop land to jatropha can have a net increase in carbon stocks and can have life

- cycle GHG emissions 83% less than CJF. However, converting areas like shrublands can make the jet fuel made from jatropha have 60% more GHG emissions (appr ox imately 20.5 kg C0 2 per gallon of biodiesel produced ). Figure 3

- 2 displays the results from the Bailis & Baka (2010) study.

Figure 3

- 2. Direct Land Use Impacts on GHG Emissions from Jatropha

Source: Bailis & Baka, 2010

Achten & Verchot (2011) evaluated five jatropha plantations: one in Ghana, one in Zambia, and three in Mexico. This study looked at direct and indirect land use change, jatropha had replaced everythi ng from cropland to natural forests. The first estimated the carbon debts3

- 7

from clearing land for jatropha production. These carbon debts ranged from 16 to 197 Mg of
CO 2 per acre, while the average was 102 Mg of CO 2 . These carbon debts were much lower when compared to oil palm production, but were higher than soybean on average. The study found the
CO 2 reduction rate to earn back the carbon was dependent upon yield. Figure 3

- 3 displays the
formula used to estimate CO 2 reduction rate of jatropha.

Figure 3

- 3. CO 2 Reduction Rate by Yield

Based on this formula, the study found that only one of the case studies would achieve a
net CO 2 reduction by the end of the first jatropha rotation (20 years). It was estimated when accounting for direct and indirect land u se that three of the case studies may take up to 3 human generations to pay back the carbon debt. Average repayment times for jatropha were between 76

- 310 years.3

- 8

Skutsch et al. (2011) also looked at the payback period for jatr opha plantations that were replacing native growing acahaul forest (direct land use change). Under the estimation that jatropha gained back 2.83 tons of CO 2 per acre per year and depending upon the density of the former forest, the payback period can range from 7.8 up to 52.5 years. The study found that
acahaul trees that were older than 25 years old took significantly longer to pack back and if jatropha yield were low, then the carbon balance was estimated to potentially never pay off the
carbon debt.

The se studies suggest that jatropha’s sustainability is very dependent upon what type of land is chosen for its growth and what types of inputs are used. Achten et al. (2010b) makes the point that jatropha, after further study, ma y not be the global savior for the developing world many expected it to be, but it could make sense in certain situations on a more locally focused
level.4

- 1 SECTION 4
REFERENCES

Achten, Wouter. 2010. "Sustainability Evaluation of Biodiesel from Jatropha curcas L.: A Life Cycle Oriented Study." PhD Dissertation.

Achten, Wouter M.J., Joana Almeida, Vincent Fobelets, Evelien Bolle, Erik Mathijs, Virendra P. Singh, Dina N. Tewari, Lo uis V. Verchot, and Bart Muys. 2010 a . “Life Cycle Assessment of Jatropha Biodiesel as Transportation Fuel in Rural India.” Applied Energy 87 (12) (December): 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. 2010 b . “Jatropha: From Global Hype to Local Opportunity.” Journal of Arid Environments 74 (1) (January): 164

– 165. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.08.010.

Achten, Wouter M.J., Lene R. Nielsen, Raf Aerts, Ard G Len gkeek, Erik D. Kjaer, Antonio Trabucco, Jon K. Hansen, Wouter H. Maes, Lars Graudal, Festus K. Akinnifesi, and Bart Muys. 2010 c . "Towards Domestication of Jatropha Curcas." Biofuels . 1(1): 91

- 107. doi:10.4155/bfs.09.4.

Achten, Wouter M. J., and Louis V. Ve rchot. 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). 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.
Almeida, J. 2009. “Generic Life Cycle Assessment of the Jatropha Biodiesel System.” PhD Disse rtation.

Almeida, J. W.M.J. Achten, M.P. Duarte, B. Mendes, and B. Muys. 2011. "Benchmarking the Environmental Performance of the Jatropha Biodiesel System through a Generic Life Cycle Assessment." Environ. Sci. Technol. 45(12): 5447

- 5453. doi:10.1021/es2 00257m.

Axelsson, L. and M. Franzén . 2010. “Performance of Jatropha Biodiesel Production and Its Environmental and Socio

- Economic Impacts.” Master’s Thesis. Chalmers University of Technology: Göteborg, Sweden.

Bailis, Robert E. and Jennifer E. Baka. 2010. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Land Use Change from Jatropha Curcas

- Based Jet Fuel in Brazil." Environ. Sci. Technol. 44(22): 8684

- 8691. doi:10.1021/es1019178.

Brittaine, R., Lutaladio, N. Jatropha: A smallholder bioenergy crop

— The potential for pro

- poor de velopment. Integrated Crop Management ; FAO: Rome, 2010; Vol. 8.4

- 2

Ceasar, S.A., and S. Ignacimuthu. 2011. “Applications of Biotechnology and Biochemical Engineering for the Improvement of Jatropha and Biodiesel: A Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Re views 15 (9) (December): 5176

– 5185. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.039.
Devappa, Rakshit K, Harinder P S Makkar, and Klaus Becker. 2010. “Jatropha Toxicity

-- a Review.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part B, Critical Reviews 13 (6) (August): 476

– 507. doi:10.1080/10937404.2010.499736.

The Global Ex c h a n ge for Social Investment (GEXSI). 2008. Global Market Study on Jatropha. Final Report. http://www.jatropha

- alliance.org/fileadmin/documents/GEXSI_Global

Jatropha

- Study_FULL

- REPORT.pdf

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 on the project “Investigation into the Impacts of Large

- Scale Planting of Jatropha curcas on Water Resources, through Process

- Based Research and Modelling”. WRC Report No 1497/1/07

. Hou, Jian, Peidong Zhang, Xianzheng Yuan, and Yonghong Zheng. 2011. “Life Cycle Assessment of Biodiesel from Soybean, Jatropha and Microalgae in Ch ina Conditions.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (9) (December): 5081

– 5091. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.048.

Jongschaap REE, Corré WJ, Bindraban PS, Brandenburg WA. 2007. Claims and Facts on Jatropha curcas L. Global Jatropha curcas evaluation, breeding and propagation
programme. Wageningen U.R. Report 158. Plant Research International B.V. (Available from http://www.fact

- fuels.org/media_en/Claims_and_Facts_on_Jatropha_

- WUR) (Accessed on 10 August 2008)

Jongschaap, R. E. E., R. a. R. Blesgraaf, T . A. Bogaard, E. N. van Loo, and H. H. G. Savenije. 2009. “The Water Footprint of Bioenergy from Jatropha Curcas L.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (35) (September 1): E92

– E92. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907272106.

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) (August): 3999

– 4007. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.025. Kant, Promode and Shuirong Wu. 2011. "The Extraordinary Collapse of Jatropha a s a Global Biofuel." Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (17): 7114

- 7115. doi: 10.1021/es201943v.
Kumar, Sunil, Jasvinder Singh, S. M. Nanoti, and M. O. Garg. 2012. “A C omprehensive Life C ycle A ssessment ( LCA) of Jatropha B iodiesel P roduction in India.” Bioresource Technology 110 (April): 723

– 729. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.142.
Lele, S. (2008c). “Project Report for Jatropha Plantation.” March 2008. Excel workbook. Available online at http://www.svlele.com.4

- 3

Maes, W.H., A. Trabucco, W.M.J. Achten, and B. Muys. 20 09. "Climatic Growing Conditions of Jatropha curcas L." Biomass and Bioenergy. 33(10): 1481

- 1485. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.06.001.

Ndong, Robert, Mireille Montrejaud

- Vignoles, Olivier Saint Girons, Benoit Gabrielles, Roland Pirot, Marjorie Dombergue, an d Caroline Sablayrolles. 2009. "Life Cycle Assessment of Biofuels from Jatropha curcas in West Africa: A Field Study." GCB Bioenergy . 1(3): 197

- 210.
Pandey, Krishan K., Namita Pragya, and P.K. Sahoo. 2011. “Life Cycle Assessment of Small

scale High

- input J atropha Biodiesel Production in India.” Applied Energy 88 (12) (December): 4831

– 4839. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.06.026.

Prueksakorn, Kritana and Shabbir H. Gheewala. "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.

Pru eksakorn, Kritana and Shabbir H. Gheenwala. 2008. "Full Chain Energy Analysis of Biodiesel from Jatropha curcas L. in Tha iland." Environ. Sci. Technol. 42(9): 3388

- 3393. doi:10.1021/es7022237

Reinhardt, Guido, Sven Gartner, Nils Rettenmaier, Julia Munch, and Eva von Falkenstein. 2007. "Screening Life Cycle Assessment of Jatropha Biodiesel." IFEU

- Institute for Energy and En vironmental Research Heidelberg GmbH: Heidelberg, Germany.

Reinhardt, Guido., Kalus Becker, D.R. Chaudhary, J. Chikara, Eva von Falkenstein, George Francis, Sven O. Gartner, et.al. 2008. "Basic Data for Jatropha Production and Use." Institute for Energy an d Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH: Heidelberg, Germany.

Rettenmaier

, Nils

, Susanne Koppen, Sven Gartner, and Guido Reinhardt . 200 8 . "Screening Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrotreated Jatrohpa Oil ." IFEU

- Institute for Energy and Environmental Researc h Heidelberg GmbH: Heidelberg, Germany.

Rijssenbeek W. 2007. Report: Expert Meeting Jatropha, Brussels 07/12/07. Brussels: European Commission Research Directorate

- General Directorate E

– Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food

Skutsch, Margaret, Emilio de los Rios, Silvia Solis, Enrique Riegelhaupt, Daniel Hinojosa, Sonya Gerfert, Yan Gao, and Omar 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

- 160411.4

- 4

Srivastava, Pankaj, Soumit K. Behera, Jyoti Gupta, Sarah Jamil, Nandita Singh, and Yogesh Kumar 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) (October): 3936

– 3942. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.008.

Stratton, Russell W., Hsin Min Wong, and James I. Hileman. 2010. "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative Jet Fuels." Partnership for AiR Transportat ion Noise and Emission Reduction Project 28. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA.

Trabucco, Antonio, Wouter M. J. Achten, Colm Bowe, Raf Aerts, Jos Van Orshoven, Lindsey Norgrove, and Bart Muys. 2010. “Global Mapping of Jatropha Curcas Yie ld Based on Response of Fitness to Present and Future Climate.” GCB Bioenergy 2 (3): 139

– 151. doi:10.1111/j.1757

- 1707.2010.01049.x.

Wahl, N., Jamnadass, R., Baur, H., et al. Economic Viability of Jatropha curcas L. Plantations in Northern Tanzania assessin g Farmers Prospects via Cost

- Benefit Analysis, ICRAF Working Paper no. 97; World Agroforestry Centre: Nairobi, 2009

. Wang, Haifeng, Yi Chen, Yi’nuo Zhao, Hongyun Liu, Jianxin Liu, Harinder P.S. Makkar, and Klaus Becker. 2011. “Effects of Replacing Soybean Meal by Detoxified Jatropha Curcas Kernel Meal in the Diet of Growing Pigs on Their Growth, Serum Biochemical Parameters and Visceral Organs.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 170 (1

- 2) (November): 141

– 146. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.08.004.

Weyerhaeu ser H, Tennigkeit T, Yufang S and Kahrl F. 2007. Biofuels in China: An Analysis of the Opportunities and Challenges of Jatropha Curcas in Southwest China. ICRAF Working Paper Number 53:27 p.

Whitaker, Michael and Garvin Heath. 2009. "Life Cycle Assessment of the Use of Jatropha Biodiesel in Indian Locomotives." National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Technical Report. NREL/TP

- 6A2

- 44428.

Wiskerke W. 2008. Towards a sustainable biomass energy supply for rural households in semi

arid Shinyanga, Tanzania. U trecht University: Department of Science, Technology and Society.