Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/130491389/art-3A10-1007-2Fs10668-012-9387-z
Timestamp: 2018-11-13 01:29:45
Document Index: 412864336

Matched Legal Cases: ['art-3', 'art-3', 'arth 197', 'arth 0', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art-3']

art-3A10.1007-2Fs10668-012-9387-z | Life Cycle Assessment | Biofuel
art-3A10.1007-2Fs10668-012-9387-z
European Commission Country Report November 2013
Environ Dev Sustain (2013) 15:429–479 DOI 10.
1007/s10668-012-9387-z
Gernot Pehnelt • Christoph Vietze
Received: 26 June 2012 / Accepted: 25 August 2012 / Published online: 6 October 2012 Ó The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract In 2010, the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) came into force in the EU and establishes a framework for achieving legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. Only sustainable biofuels can be counted towards Member State targets. The aim of this paper is to calculate realistic and transparent scenario-based CO2-emission values for the GHG emissions savings of palm oil fuel compared with fossil fuel. Using the calculation scheme proposed by the RED, we derive a more realistic overall GHG emissions saving value for palm oil diesel by using current input and output data of biofuel production (e.g. in South-East Asia). We calculate different scenarios in which reliable data on the production conditions (and the regarding emission values during the production chain) of palm oil diesel are used. Our results indicate values for the GHG emissions savings potential of palm oil biodiesel not only above the 19 % default and 36 % typical value published in RED but also above the 35 % sustainable threshold. Our ﬁndings conclude the more accurate GHG emissions saving value for palm oil feedstock for electricity generation to be 52 %, and for transportation biodiesel between 38.5 and 41 %, depending on the fossil fuel comparator. Our results conﬁrm the ﬁndings by other studies and challenge the ofﬁcial typical and default values published in RED. As a result, the reliability of the Directive to support the EU’s low-carbon ambitions is being undermined, exposing the EU and commission to charges of trade discrimination and limiting the ability of Member States to achieve their legally binding GHG emission reductions. Keywords Biofuel Á Palm oil Á Biodiesel Á Renewable energy directive Á Typical values Á Default values Á GHG emissions
G. Pehnelt Independent Research Institute GlobEcon, Johann-Friedrich-Str. 25, 07745 Jena, Germany e-mail: gp@globecon.org G. Pehnelt Á C. Vietze (&) Department of Economics, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Carl-Zeiss-Strasse 3, 07743 Jena, Germany e-mail: christoph.vietze@uni-jena.de C. Vietze EconEcolDev, Dornburger Str. 135, 07743 Jena, Germany
G. Pehnelt, C. Vietze
JEL classiﬁcation F14 Á F18 Á O13 Á Q01 Á Q15 Á Q27 Á Q56 Á Q57
1 Introduction The European Union (EU) introduced an ambitious renewable energy policy in 2003, which has been further elaborated since then. The main document of this policy is the Renewable Energy Directive (RED). The Directive emphasises the EU’s commitment to cut emissions by at least 20 % of 1990 levels by 2020. Proposed measures include improvements in energy efﬁciency as well as a binding target to increase the share of renewable energy by 2020 with 20 % renewable energy sources in total EU energy consumption. The share of renewable sources in EU road transport (i.e. biofuels) is required to reach at least 10 % by 2020. The EU introduced certain sustainability criteria for the production and use of biofuels. One requirement of the EU Renewable Energy Directive for sustainable biofuels is that ‘‘there should be no damages to sensitive or important ecosystems while cultivating energy feedstocks’’ (EU 2009). This includes the absence of conversion of land with high biodiversity value and the conversion of land with high carbon stock. Another critical criterion refers to the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions saving potential of biofuels. The Directive requires that the greenhouse gas emissions associated with production and use of biofuels are at least 35 % lower than those associated with production and use of conventional fuels. This threshold will rise to 50 % by 2017 and will increase further to 60 % in 2018. In order to calculate these GHG emissions saving ratios, the RED requires that the whole production chain from cultivation of the feedstock up to use of the biofuels is considered. The most comprehensive approach to consider all stages of the production and use of biofuels and to evaluate the ecological impact of biofuels would be a detailed and wellfounded life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA analyses the environmental ﬂows related to a product or a service during all life cycle stages, from the extraction of raw materials to the end of life. Despite the growing interest in such studies, there are still relatively few LCA studies on biofuels and most of them focus on products and conditions in the EU or North America. One reason for that is the high uncertainty regarding the very methodology and data quality. Since it is an integral part of any comprehensive LCA to take into account the various co-products and side-effects of the activities associated with the production, transportation, commercialisation and consumption of the product under consideration, it has to be decided what exactly should be integrated into the analysis and how it should be measured with respect to the long-term (side-) effects over the full life cycle of the very product. The more co-products, allocation and distribution effects, environmental, economic and social issues one tries to consider in the course of LCA, the more complex the whole process becomes. With every single issue integrated into the analysis the variability regarding the assumptions, model structure and data quality, and—not least—the more blurred the results get. That is why it is neither possible to take into account every single effect a product or service might have over its full life cycle, nor is it appropriate with respect to the transparency and explanatory power of the models and results. That is why it necessary to somehow limit the complexity of the underlying model by setting a clear cut system boundary and concentrate on the main inputs and outputs associated with the production and consumption of the very product. In the case of the biofuels, this includes the energy balance of the full process covering residuals and coproducts. So-called well-to-wheel (WTW) studies are an appropriate and accepted way to
analyse the energy balance and carbon footprint of biofuels. In order to compare fossil and alternative fuels, they have to include the direct emissions of gasoline or diesel during the use phase in the motor combustion (tank-to-wheel/TTW) as well as indirect emissions associated with the production and transportation of the respective fuel (well-to-tank/ WTT).1 Although the full process within the system boundary of production and consumption of many biofuels is basically well-known, reports on biofuels using LCA-like methods usually show a serious lack in transparency with respect to methodological details and assumptions such as speciﬁc yields, conversion technologies, inputs and outputs as well as the treatment of co-products and the respective allocation method (Menichetti and Otto 2009). Consequently, due to serious measurement problems, methodological differences, the lack of transparency and other uncertainties related with LCA, the results of published studies regarding the environmental effects—for example, the carbon footprint—of biofuels are far from conclusive and show tremendous differences, both quantitatively and qualitatively. For instance, there is a remarkable difference between the calculation of carbon reduction performance of palm oil–based biofuel by the EU and a range of scientiﬁc studies. In calculations by the EU, the default GHG emissions reduction by palm oil–based biofuels fail the given threshold of 35 per cent under certain assumptions whereas quite a few studies yield very different results. Among other issues, this has been documented and discussed in a previous paper by Pehnelt and Vietze (2009). Given the noteworthy results of this previous study, we recalculate the GHG emissions saving value for palm oil as a source for biodiesel in order to further assess the carbon footprint of palm oil and to overcome the lack in transparency in existing publications on the very issue.2
2 Production process 2.1 Cultivation of oil palm/plantation The oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) is a perennial crop with a height of approximately 10 metres but can grow up to 20 m tall. Oil palms have a (productive) lifetime of more than 30 years. Harvesting the palm oil fruits/fresh fruit bunches (FFB) usually starts in the second or third year after planting the tree (Corley and Tinker 2003; Singh 2006). The palms are productive from the age of 2–3 years up to the age of 25–30 years after planting while giving the highest yields in the ﬁrst third to the middle of the life cycle. Corley and Tinker (2003) estimate an average age of palms when replanting at 25 years after planting. Azman and Noor (2002) calculate the optimal age of re-planting to be 25–26 years while Yusoff and Hansen (2007) estimate the age of palms when re-planting up to 30 years. In our estimation, we conservatively consider 25 years. Oil palm cultivation implies several ﬁeld work processes using fossil fuel such as planting of new palms, sowing of crop cover, fertiliser and pesticide application, harvesting and transportation to the oil mill nearby and ﬁnally after 25 years clearing and preparing the ﬁeld for replanting (Schmidt 2007).
The results of such analyses are can be expressed as the relation between the total GHG emissions and the energy content of different types of fuel, usually measured in carbon dioxide equivalents per megajoule (g CO2 eq/MJ). The authors of the study sought to include data from the Joint Research Center that were used to develop the current values in the Directive. Requests for data were not returned.
The oil palm fruits are attached to bunches (FFB—fresh fruit bunches) of around 25 kg. Each FFB carries 1,500–2,000 single fruits (for oil palms 10–15 years old) and contains around 20 % oil, 25 % nuts (5 % kernels, 13 % ﬁbre and 7 % shell) and 23 % empty fruit bunches. The kernels yield around 55 % oil and 8 % protein (Corley and Tinker 2003; Møller et al. 2000). The palms are harvested year-round; each time only one FFB per oil palm is harvested. Harvesting is done manually, and the FFB are collected with a truck. Young palms are harvested with a chisel whereas old and tall palms are harvested with a long-handled sickle. As they are harvested only by manual labour, there is no fossil energy input to harvesting (Pleanjai et al. 2007). The fruit bunches are generally transported to the mill on the day of harvesting. When the palms are getting too unproductive, the palms are felled and usually replaced by new palms (Schmidt 2007). 2.2 Milling process Although the speciﬁc milling process differs according to the products one wants to obtain, basically, the following steps are done in the oil mill. First, the sterilisation of the FFB is done batchwise in an autoclave with an internal temperature inside of about 120–130 °C to ensure the FFB is completely cooked. The steam condensate is the wastewater generated at this step. Second, the FFB are striped to separate the sterilised fruits from bunch stalks. This processing step generates the empty fruit bunches (EFB) that are put into the digester where they are mashed under steam-heated conditions. Often, the EFB is used as mulch in the oil palm plantation (Corley and Tinker 2003).3 In a third step, the crude palm oil extraction, the homogenous oil mash from the digester, is pushed through a screw press and later passes through a vibrating screen, a hydrocyclone and decanters to remove ﬁne solids and water. Centrifugal and vacuum driers are used to further purify the oil before sending it to a storage tank and later sold as CPO. The ﬁbre and nuts from the screw press are usually separated in a cyclone. The ﬁbre that passes out of the bottom of the cyclone can be used as boiler fuel from which ash (fertiliser) is produced after combustion. The nuts are cracked in a centrifugal cracker. After the cracking process, the entire palm kernels and shells are separated (e.g. by clay suspension). The separated shells from the kernels are used as boiler fuel. The kernels are further processed in order to extract the palm kernel oil (PKO). The main environmental impact related to methane emissions from production of palm oil in the palm oil mill relates to the technology for treating palm oil mill efﬂuent (POME). There are three main sources of POME in the palm oil mill: clariﬁcation waste water (60 % of total POME), steriliser condensate (36 % of total POME) and hydro cyclone waste water from nut and ﬁbre separation (4 % of total POME) (Department of Environment 1999; Schmidt 2007). The most common treatment of POME is still an open anaerobic and aerobic ponds and later the use as land application and fertiliser (Lim et al. 1999). The alternative technology is the installing of digester tanks for biogas capturing and subsequent utilisation of biogas for electricity production. At the palm oil mill selected for his study, Schmidt (2007) describes how POME is digested anaerobically to yield biogas which is used in modiﬁed diesel engine with a 90-kW induction motor.
2.3 Reﬁning process The reﬁning process includes neutralisation, bleaching and deodorisation of the oil. The output from the reﬁnery is then reﬁned palm oil (RefPO). In these steps of the production processes, some losses of oil take place. The purpose of neutralisation (including degumming) is to remove lecithin and free fatty acids. The lecithin is removed by applying phosphoric acid (0.25 kg/t RefPO, UPRD 2004) in the degumming process. In the following, the content of free fatty acids is removed by applying sodium hydroxide (2.9 kg/t RefPO, UPRD 2004). When the sodium hydroxide reacts with the free fatty acids, the outcome is soap-water. Next, the mix of oil and soap-water is centrifuged in order to separate out the soap which is sold. The soap is sent through the soap stock splitting process were the outcomes are free fatty acids (used as fodder) and soap (sold to soap manufacturing) (Hansen 2006). The bleaching process is applied in order to remove undesired coloured particles. In the bleaching process, the oil is brought in contact with Fuller’s earth (bentonite), the most common used agent for ﬁltering the oil, which absorbs the undesired particles (Schmidt 2007). In the bleaching process, oil is lost due to oil content of approximately 30 % oil in the used Fuller’s earth (Singh 2006). Finally, the oil is sent through the deodorisation process to remove undesired odoriferous or ﬂavouring compounds. In the deodorisation process, minor amounts of different ancillaries are applied, for example, citric acid. Since these ancillaries constitute in-signiﬁcant amounts (just a few gram per ton of RefPO), they are omitted in this study. About 0.1 % of the oil is lost in the deodorisation process (Hansen 2006). 2.4 Transport The reﬁned palm oil is then transported to ﬁnal consumption for (co-generated) electricity production in Europe or further processing to FAME/biodiesel. The transportation stage includes the transport from the reﬁnery to the port in the country of origin and the shipment of the reﬁned palm oil to the EU.4 2.5 Esteriﬁcation process In order to convert reﬁned palm oil into biodiesel (fatty acid methyl ester/FAME), which can be used by almost all conventional diesel engines in cars, usually a transesteriﬁcation reaction comes into play. This process usually requires two to three stages with subsequent washing, drying and polishing of the reaction product. The reﬁned, bleached and deodorised palm oil is thoroughly mixed with methanol and sodium hydroxide as a catalyst. The mixture is heated to the reaction temperature and fed to a reactor where the esteriﬁcation reaction takes place. Glycerol formed in the reaction is separated from the methyl ester phase. Further conversion of the methyl ester takes place in a second and sometimes third reactor. Once the reaction is complete, the major co-products, biodiesel and glycerin, are separated into two layers. The methanol is typically removed after the biodiesel and glycerin have been separated, to prevent the reaction from reversing itself. The methanol is cleaned and recycled back to the beginning of the process. Once separated from the glycerin, the
Note that not just ready reﬁned palm oil is exported but also signiﬁcant amounts of crude palm oil (CPO).
2 0. South-East Asia) can be considered as the reﬁnery or even the oil mill stage. The following Table 1 shows the 10 major producers of biodiesel sorted by output in 2009.7 5.0 7.0 1. transport and use of the 5 The European Union (EU) (2009) Directive calculates with an average penalising factor of 1.2 1.5 3. Vietze 2008 61. adding artiﬁcial penalising factors5 to the esteriﬁcation process to get a default value is nonsense.6 0.0 2.3 270.0 0.1 77.5 1.9 2009 51. signiﬁcantly falls behind those on top of the list.g.7 0.7 8. Note that the ﬁrst country that grows oil palms in a signiﬁcant manner.9 0.7 13. Furthermore.2 11.2 142. Although a few facilities for esteriﬁcation/biodiesel production have been established in the countries of origin in South-East Asia.0 9. Pehnelt.4 0.2 2006 70.5 202. the very producer of FAME has to provide insights into the technology applied in the esteriﬁcation process.8 0.1 20. 123 .1 0.2 6. The actual biodiesel production of Malaysia. C. 3 Methodology In order to calculate the GHG impact of palm oil.7 34.5 8.7 0. residual catalyst and soaps. not to mention Next Generation Biomass-to-Liquid (NExBTL-biodiesel) and Hydrotreating.1 10.9 0. ranks 6th.3 1.4.4 5.9 308.0 5.4 4. Thailand.0 2007 78.4 11.1 7. even if the very FAME is produced in the country of origin.0 8.1 32. the actual system boundary of production in the country of origin (e. Given the fact that the ﬁnal stage of palm oil–based biodiesel is still usually done in the target country.7 32.434 Table 1 Top 10 producers of biodiesel Country Biodiesel production (thousand barrels per day) 2005 Germany France United States Brazil Italy Thailand China Malaysia South Korea Lithuania World 39. far behind countries in Europe and America. new technologies available have dramatically reduced the energy intensity of the transformation process of vegetable oils into FAME. a life cycle analysis including all activities associated with the production.6 16.4 44.9 G. the process of esteriﬁcation usually takes place in facilities in the importing countries.2 1. Indonesia.0 4. In order to do so.2 41.0 7. the world’s largest palm oil producer.3 18. As a matter of fact. This has to be considered from case to case while assessing the GHG emissions of the very biofuel produced.2 Source US Energy Information Administration (2011) biodiesel goes through a clean-up or puriﬁcation process to remove excess alcohol. as the second largest producer of crude palm oil in the world. One should deﬁnitely refer to the current common technologies. transformation.1 13.9 27. does not even appear on this list.0 1.
emissions from transport and distribution. emissions from the fuel in use. machinery and means of transportation) are not considered in our LCA. and eee. eccr. Other transport processes are included in the other life cycle stages. The methodology of the calculation scheme is laid down in part C Annex V of the Directive 2009/28/EC and in Annex IV.C of Directive 2009/30/EC (land use chance). etd. The determination of the system boundaries of the oil mill stage and reﬁnery stage is based on the methodology presented in Schmidt and Weidema (2008). eccs.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel 435 respective biofuel has to be conducted. etc. As in the EU-Directive (European Union (EU) 2009) Annex V(C). Using the same basic calculation scheme. C Methodology)—emissions from the manufacture of machinery and equipment shall not be taken into account. Table 8). The transport stage only includes transport of oil from the reﬁnery to ﬁnal use which is assumed to be in Europe represented by Port Rotterdam. ep. the production of palm oil is divided into ﬁve stages: agricultural stage. GHG emissions reductions are calculated as follows: SAVING ¼ ðEF À EB Þ=EF . emission saving from excess electricity from cogeneration.) and capital goods (building. marketing.6 Furthermore. re-ﬁnery stage. Greenhouse gas emissions from the production and transport of fuels. Annex V. emissions from the extraction or cultivation of raw materials. emissions from processing. emission saving from carbon capture and geological storage. eec. We use the calculation tool provided by IFEU (2010) based on the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) project BioGrace (2010). As shown in the previous chapter. total emissions from the use of the fuel. as— according to the EU-Directive (EU 2009. where EB is the total emission from the respective biofuel and EF is the total emissions from fossil biodiesel. we use also conservative values based on the average of the values found in reliable scientiﬁc studies. We use a conservative baseline model to calculate GHG emissions for every step of the palm diesel production chain based on the background data provided by the latest available version of the JEC database (see Appendix. emission saving from carbon capture and replacement. eu. biofuels and bioliquids shall be calculated as: EB ¼ eec þ el þ ep þ etd þ eu þ esca þ eccs þ eccr þ eee where EB. and the determination of the system boundaries relating the agricultural stage is based on the methodology presented in Schmidt (2008). for the very inputs and outputs of the production process. el. esca.g. emission saving from soil carbon accumulation via improved agricultural management. annualised emissions from carbon stock changes caused by direct land use change. oil mill stage. 123 . in South-East Asia) documenting every single step in detail. This tool is engineered to produce greenhouse gas (GHG) calculations using the methodology as given in the Directives 2009/28/EC 6 Background data are taken from the JEC (2011) E3-database (version 31-7-2008). administration. We calculate different scenarios in which reliable data on the production conditions (and the regarding emissions values during the production chain) of palm oil diesel are used. Overhead (operation of buildings. transport stage and esteriﬁcation stage. The aim of this paper is to calculate realistic and transparent scenario-based CO2emission values for the GHG emission savings of palm oil fuel compared with fuel from crude oil. we derive a more realistic overall GHG emissions saving value for palm oil diesel by using current input and output data of biofuel production (e.
the transformation from primary to degraded forest is related to logging in the ﬁst instance since change in demand for timber is the main driving force of logging (Schmidt 2007). Thus. and Pagiola (2000). C. based on studies of Bek-Nielsen 2006. 2008. oil palm plantations are ‘‘almost always established on already disturbed land’’ (Schmidt 2007. Tilman et al. he assumes that 50 % takes place by transformation of degraded/secondary forest and the other 50 % of oil palm expansions takes place by transformation of grassland. Analysing data from FAO (2005). However. Teoh 2000). there is a general increase in the cultivated area of rubber and coconut. Pehnelt and Vietze (2009) consider that land might have been initially deforested for other reasons and then ﬁnally be planted with oil palm. looking at Malaysia and Indonesia in sum. assumptions and background data. According to the German Advisory Council on Global Change (2008). also when looking at degradation of primary forest only. 2008. Glastra et al. There is some evidence that a considerable share of the oil palm expansion has and is taking place on land released from other crops (Corley and Tinker 2003. as only these steps are considered to calculate the EU typical and default value. cocoa and coconuts has been decreasing from around the year 1990 to the year 2005 while the planted area of oil palm has been increasing at the same rate during the same period of time. reliable and scientiﬁcally founded approach. in such a situation a major climate change mitigation effect can be achieved at very low cost. ProForest 2003). Thus. (2006) and Wakker (2004). Pehnelt. As our aim is a realistic. and only a small decrease in the cultivated area of cocoa is identiﬁed from 1994 to 1999 (FAOSTAT 2006). In contrast to the EU-Directive (European Union (EU) 2009) as well as all other studies. coconut and cocoa (Henson 2004). This comparison suggests that it is unlikely that oil palm is the main driver of logging primary forest. However. we focus our research on GHG emissions related to plantation. Because of these uncertainties regarding the reasons and effects of land use change. Vietze (Renewable Energy Directive) and 2009/30/EC (Fuel Quality Directive). oil palm in Malaysia has largely been planted on land released from rubber. processing and transport of palm biodiesel. 2002. Frese et al. FAOSTAT (2006). In the past. or abandoned agricultural land. Furthermore. Casson (2003). we do not consider this problem explicitly in the current paper.436 G. Henson 2004. Using these formerly degraded and abandoned agricultural lands to grow native perennials like oil palms for biofuel production is economically and ecologically efﬁcient as this could spare the destruction of native ecosystems. secondary forest. see for example. However. Schmidt (2007) concludes that the annual deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia is signiﬁcantly larger than the increase in agricultural area. the question then is what kind of land is transformed. All data are well documented in our study. To asses the emissions related to direct land use change. it seems that there is no large-scale displacement of other crops by oil palm plantations (indirect land use change) but obviously a transformation of nonagricultural land into oil palm cultivation instead. the issue of land use 123 . this measure reduces GHG emissions as carbon being stored in the soil and the growing palm (Fargione et al. 2006). Moreover. Schmidt (2007) states that it is not possible to estimate the composition of land types transformed into oil palm exactly. we do not use unaudited assumptions but rely only on exact measured and proven primary data instead. Disturbed land may be either cleared forest (alang–alang grassland). we provide a full transparency by indicating all input and output data. Field et al. Most NGO’s claim that land transformation towards oil palms is related to clearing of primary forest. If oil palm is planted directly on transformed primary forest. This could be conﬁrmed with data obtained from FAOSTAT (2006) for Malaysia where the planted area of rubber.
000–130.300 km2. For that. p. we use the diesel consumption in machinery in the plantation as a total value including all ﬁeld work processes per ha per year. 7 123 . Unlike to the clearing of primary forests. After that. i. Garrity et al. The immature stage is regarded as the ﬁrst 2 years after planting. IPCC (2003) and Henson (2004) he estimate an CO2 emission from land use chance (alang–alang grassland to oil palm) of -33 t CO2 eq per ha. the question is where the new plantations could be established.000–5. Unilever (1990) and Yusoff and Hansen (2007). 0.3–1. expecting an increasing demand in palm oil.5 % of the total area. The applied energy use is 58.1 Plantation stage As further explained in Sect. The fertiliser uses applied in this study are shown in Table 3. we use more recent output ﬁgures (see Table 2). this kind of land use change is beneﬁcial regarding the CO2 emissions balance of palm oil.48 17. harvesting and transportation). (1995).e. Related to the average life time of an oil palm cultivation of 25 years this equates to annually GHG emissions of -1.36 20. the palms are supposed to provide yields (FFB) for 23 years. Since oil palm is a perennial. Our data are based on data on cultivation practices in Malaysia. three different stages must be considered: (i) nursery.000 km2. The major emission source of plantation relates to fertilisers. (1997) estimate the area of alang– alang grass land in Malaysia as 1. sowing of crop cover.7 3.38 Source Schmidt (2007. Schmidt (2007) regarded the seed production and nursery as insigniﬁcant for oil palm cultivation due to the lifetime of oil palms of 25 years.49 18. planting of new palms.1. The yields of FFB applied in our models are based on the average yields in Malaysia and Indonesia as obtained from FAOSTAT (2006). According to Garrity et al.90 17. we conservatively consider an oil palm life cycle of 25 years in our estimation.87 t FFB per ha.32 t CO2 eq from land use chance. fertiliser and pesticide application. i.95 20. Schmidt (2007) analyses CO2 emissions relating from land use chance from alang– alang grassland to oil palm in Malaysia and Indonesia.85 19.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Table 2 FFB yields in Malaysia and Indonesia Region Average yield 1990–2005 (linear regression 1990–2005 by Schmidt 2007) (t/ha) 19. fossil fuel is used. By using data on the respective carbon and nitrogen stock from Billore et al.19 l per ha per year.g.e. 4–7 % of the total area. while the area of grassland available for agricultural expansion in Indonesia is 75. currently the second largest producer of palm oil. (ii) immature plantation and (iii) mature plantation. We rely on the calculated linear regressions of yields from 1990 to 2005 by Schmidt (2007) of averaging 18. For several ﬁeld work processes of oil palm cultivation (e.30 18.84 17. 87) change (as well as biodiversity) is addressed by the other criteria given by RED and is considered separately from the very GHG emissions saving potential. (1997) and Corley (2006) large areas of alang–alang grassland is available for expanding the agricultural area in Indonesia. We adopt the average of ﬁve different sources on the Nevertheless. In further scenarios.20 19. The interventions from oil palm cultivation are applied as a weighted average of the immature and mature plantation. the average of Singh (2006).95 18.87 Yield 2003 (t/ha) Yield 2003 (t/ha) 437 Yield 2003 (t/ha) Malaysia Indonesia Malaysia and Indonesia 20. 2.
0. the applied uses are 105 kg N/ha. the nutrient demand cannot be expected as a stand alone guideline for the application of artiﬁcial fertiliser (Schmidt 2007). 123. average Malaysia. p. cypermethrin/ha. the direct N2O ﬁeld emissions of the plantation of N-fertilisers are included in the emission calculation related to the input of N-fertiliser. the use of pesticides is reduced by an integrated pest management programme.i. biomass residuals (pruned fronds.264. 0.i. 170 kg K/ha (204 kg K2O/ha) and 21 kg Mg/ha (35 kg MgO/ha).4 kg a. That includes the planting of beneﬁcial ﬂowering plants that attract parasites and predators of the common pests of the oil palm 123 . C. Yusoff and Hansen 2007) and one data source for immature oil palms (Henson 2004. IFA et al. p. immature Average value (mature) Average value (immature) Applied value (2 years immature.i. warfarin/ha). the average of 2 years immature and 23 years mature oil palm. 13. Vietze Source Applied fertiliser in oil palm plantations United Plantations 2005 Malaysia. p. United Plantations Berhad (UPB) 2006. 10-year-old palms Nutrient demand. costal soils Malaysia. 23 years mature) Theoretical ﬁgures Recommended application (by MPOB) Nutrient demand. the total amounts of applied nutrients in fertiliser in oil palm plantations are calculated as the average of 2 years immature and 23 years mature palms. Therefore. It is important to note that the nutrient demand for oil palm is the total demand that may be met by inputs of artiﬁcial fertilisers.00021 kg a.i. average 2001 Malaysia. EFB and POME). Subranamiam 2006a.013 kg a. (2002) FAO (2004) Henson (2004) Average of 1.31 kg a. fungicides/ha and 0. p. 31 kg P/ha (70 kg P2O5/ha). 129.i. 2002. For the use of pesticides. decomposition from the atmosphere and possible decrease in the soil nitrogen pool. average 2002 Malaysia.438 Table 3 Fertiliser use oil palm plantation Fertiliser N (kg N/ ha) P (kg P2O5/ ha) K (kg K2O/ ha) Ca (kg CaO/ ha) G. The applied active ingredient (a. glyphosate/ha. We use the same calculation methodology as in RED (European Union (EU) 2009) and—therefore—the RED values for N2O ﬁeld emissions (8. we obtain data by Singh (2006). 15-year-old palms Source Schmidt (2007. Often. 3.84 gCO2 eq per kg N-fertiliser).7 kg per ha per year (2. 110. 4 and 5 The value given in 6 Average value fertiliser use in mature oil palm plantations (FAO 2004. According to the oil palm life cycle. 36) in Malaysia. 2. Hence.) of pesticides is 2. Pehnelt. 91) 128 114 182 144 32 56 200 180 315 – – – FAO (2004) Corley and Tinker (2003) Corley and Tinker (2003) 136 96 124 100 76 90 106 90 105 77 28 128 45 86 35 73 35 70 297 172 256 205 119 140 210 140 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 United Plantations Berhad (2006) Yusoff and Hansen (2007) Subranamiam (2006a) IFA et al. Thus.
the CH4 emission is 13. we apply 1. 2004). the entire palm kernels are treated with the speciﬁc heating value as by-product. Schmidt (2007) and Singh et al.8 kg per t FFB and kernel of 53. Cold-pressed PKO is used as a high quality edible oil and palm kernel meal as food for livestock. Fee and Sharma 1999).717 g per litre (Andersen et al.59 g CO2 eq per kg CPO. 1999). 2004) ﬁgures on the product ﬂows of ﬁbre (130.2 kg per t FFB is determined as the Malaysian average in 2003–2005 given in MPOB (2005) and MPOB (2006). The average methane emission is 13. Subranamiam et al. shell (70. Subranamiam (2006a) and general literature on oil palm processing: Department of Environment (1999). 123 . another serious pest. Schmidt (2007) analyses the required input data of 8 The methane content of biogas is 65 % (Ma et al. We calculate this value according to average POME output of 672. p. This is in good accordance with the ﬁgures provided in Ma et al. p. Yacob et al.0 kg per t POME. The energy supply to the oil mill includes electricity and steam. With a density of methane at 0. Normally. palm oil mills are self-sufﬁcient in electricity and heat (Henson 2004. The most common technology for treating POME is open anaerobic and aerobic ponds and later the use as land application and fertiliser (Lim et al. The production of crude palm oil (CPO) of 199. 2005. this causes high emission levels of the green house gas methane. which damage the seedlings in the nursery.1998 t CPO per t FFB and the methane emissions of POME of 8. However.093. We apply values according Malaysian national ﬁgures as the average of 1996 (Singh 1999) and 2002 (Ma et al.0 kg/t FFB). steriliser condensate (36 % of total POME).2 Oil mill stage The values for the production process of the oil mill stage are mainly based on Singh (2006). In our estimation scenarios. 30). and hydro cyclone waste water from nut and ﬁbre separation (4 % of total POME) (Department of Environment 1999. 3. we consider in another baseline scenario that the output of entire palm kernels in the milling stage is further processed in the oil mill to palm kernel oil (PKO) and palm kernel meal (PKM). two high value co-products would be produced. Yacob et al. Henson 2004.0 kg/t FFB). this treatment is applied in our baseline scenario. if not all. ﬁbre and shells are burned for energy purposes (Department of Environment 1999.5 g POME per kg FFB (Ma et al.74 g per kg FFB and the methane GWP of 25 CO2 eq. The alternative technology is the installing of digester tanks for biogas capturing and subsequent utilisation of biogas for electricity production. (2004).8 The converted value is calculated from production yield of 0. (1999). 2006). the methane emission could be calculated as 18. 2004. Although the values for the GHG savings are smaller (as we count only the heating value of by-products). Alternatively. are controlled by barn owls that are attracted by setting up nesting boxes (Fee and Sharma 1999). Thus.0 g per kg POME (Ma et al. Weng 1999). As value for the methane emissions from POME. EFB (225. We account for the electricity needed additionally. 2004. 119). Most. Schmidt 2007). 1981.1 kg CH4/t POME. It appears from the description of the production process that the palm oil mill has several product outputs. Therefore. The main environmental impact related to the production of palm oil in the palm oil mill regards to the technology for treating palm oil mill efﬂuent (POME). immature palms and eat the fruits. (2006) have measured the methane emission from a pond system over a period of 12 months. Rats.2 m3 per t POME.5 kg/t FFB) per tonne of processed FFB.0 kg/t FFB) and POME (672. Singh 1999) and CH4 emissions of 13.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel 439 (Arulandoo 2006. There are three main sources of POME in the palm oil mill: clariﬁcation waste water (60 % of total POME).
0 kg shell are burned per tonne of FFB input. All input values of PKO milling are converted to the input of 10. 2. the theoretical energy input is 2. This is allocated with the excess electricity of the CPO milling stage in our calculations. 2004). (2005). According to Subranamiam (2006a).1 MJ per kg (dry matter basis). The average heat to power ratio is 17. In this analysis. Singh 1999. the power central uses fossil fuel for start-ups of the boiler in the power central. Thus. Yusoff 2006. The electricity recovered from the turbine.8 MJ per kg. (2003) surveyed seven palm oil mills where utilisation factors averaging at 65. 2004). (2005).1 MJ per kg and 20. that is. the caloriﬁc value of the fuel composition of 65 % ﬁbre and 35 % shell can be determined as 13. we assume that the difference between the required steam (469. 104 MJ/t FFB or 28. Husain et al.9 kWh per t FFB.440 G. 130.0 kg ﬁbre and 70.5 kWh (Chavalparit et al. According to Subranamiam et al. there is approximately 30 % electricity in excess.9 kWh per t FFB. Singh 2006).7 kWh. 1992. Subranamiam 2006a). The required electricity for processing 1 t FFB varies between 14. He concludes that all of the ﬁbre and shell are used as boiler fuel.4 kWh) is released to the atmosphere. the excess electricity displaces electricity delivered from the grid directly.6 %. Hence.2 kWh per t PKO in Malaysian palm kernel oil mills given in Subranamiam (2006b).708 MJ steam and 104 MJ electricity. Yusof and Weng 2004). (2005). Transport of FFB to the oil mill is included in our values of diesel use in the plantation stage. All transports of FFB takes place in the plantation since oil mills are situated in or very close to the plantation (Schmidt 2007).691 MJ or 469.763 MJ per t FFB. The palm kernel oil mill processes the kernels from the palm oil mill into palm kernel oil (PKO) and palm kernel meal (PKM). It is usual that excess steam is released to the atmosphere (Kandiah et al. the excess electricity displaces electricity from the grid indirectly. Husain et al. Thus. oil mills use 0. PKC and processed entire kernels is based on average ﬁgures from 2002/2003 to 2003/2004 given in Oil World (2005). With average moisture content of ﬁbre (40 %) and shell (10 %) (values given in Ma et al.000 t FFB in the CPO milling stage according the respective output of entire palm kernels in the different scenarios. (2006). as it is used locally on the estate in administration and residence buildings for the workers and there families and sometimes in a reﬁnery if the estate has its own reﬁnery plant. According to Singh and Thorairaj (2006) and Subranamiam et al.811 MJ distributed on 1. respectively (Subranamiam et al. Pehnelt. In addition to the input of ﬁbre and shell. we apply an energy use of 267. the total heat and power production per t FFB is 1. (2003). Singh and Thorairaj (2006). C. 2006) through 17. 123 . Palm kernel oil and palm kernel cake are extracted from the kernels in a mechanical pressing process to produce high valued edible palm oil (MPOB 2006. If palm oil mills are not connected to the national grid. mechanical pressing in Malaysia is done using a double pressing method without pre-heating. exceeds the requirement for processing the FFB.7 kWh (Yusoff and Hansen 2007) to 18–22 kWh (Singh and Thorairaj 2006) and 20 kWh (Ma et al. The product ﬂow (Bockisch 1998) of PKO.161 t PKM. Thus. and Weng (1999). The ﬁgures on steam and electricity production per t FFB could be conﬁrmed by Singh and Thorairaj (2006). Fibre and shell have caloriﬁc values 19. Vietze energy (steam and electricity) and heating values of ﬁbre and shell of Chavalparit et al.37 litre of diesel per t FFB. Therefore. The inventory is mainly provided by Subranamiam (2006a. 2004.9 %. that is.7 kWh) and the produced steam (474. the steam requirement for processing of 1 tonne FFB is 1. To produce 1 t PKO and 1. 8. Subranamiam et al.228 t entire palm kernels are processed. We assume an average requirement of 20 kWh per t FFB. b). Since these buildings are connected to the national grid or to local generators.
g.9 In alternative scenarios. Taking the energy content of the by-product glycerol into account. use conservative values on the efﬁciency of the esteriﬁcation process based on common technologies using values for energy consumption and chemical inputs on the upper end of the range that can be found in recent publications.29 g CO2 eq/MJ FAME. 3. it is transported in an oceanic tanker operated with HFO. Although the economic value of glycerol might be higher than its caloriﬁc value.2 %.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel 441 3. Alternatively.2 % and the loss in the neutralisation process is calculated at 4. Thus.975 km (PortWorld Distances 2011). The by-product glycerol provides a GHG emissions credit. The used energy for all production steps of the reﬁnery stage is calculated by Schmidt (2007). we have calculated the GHG emissions that can be expected in the transesteriﬁcation process in which methanol is combined with the reﬁned palm oil in order to derive palm oil methylester. nearly non additional chemicals are used. This by-product can for instance to be used to produce soap or other materials. according to IFEU (2010). 3. we use a second scenario of the esteriﬁcation process in some of our calculations. As (the small amounts of) phosphoric acid and sodium hydroxide are only used in the production of the by-products animal food and soap.10 In the calculations documented in the following Table 4 we.5 Esteriﬁcation Based on the standard methodology proposed by the EU (2009) (Directives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC). glycerol evolves as a by-product. Corresponding to Kang (2006). we end up with a total net GHG emission of about 10. In the steps of the production processes to reﬁned palm oil (RefPO). some losses of oil take place. Schmidt (2007) assumes that CPO sent to reﬁning has free fatty acid content at 4. we only consider the energy content of this by-product in calculating the GHG emissions of the whole process.53 kg per t RefPO (UPRD 2004).4 Transportation stage The reﬁned palm oil produced in South-East Asia is supposed to be transported in a diesel operated truck for about 200 km on average to a port (Schmidt 2007).2 % similarly. The average distance between major ports in South-East Asia and Europe has been conservatively calculated to be 14. The loss in the neutralisation process mainly includes the separated free fatty acids. we calculate with the EU default value of 135 g CO2eg per kg RefPO provided by JEC (2011) E3-database (version 31-7-2008). we neglect these chemicals as input factors. From there. neutralisation. Since the use of bleaching earth is 4. bleaching and deodorisation) of palm oil. CPO has free fatty acid content of between 3 % and 5 %. The GHG emissions of more sophisticated current technologies are supposed to be 9 The distance represents the distance from Port Kelang in Malaysia to the port in Rotterdam (The Netherlands). He assumes a use of 35 kWh per t RefPO electricity from the grid and heat input of 328 MJ per t RefPO which is provided by burning 9 litres of diesel per t RefPO.3 Reﬁnery stage In the reﬁning process (e. the loss of oil in the bleaching process can be calculated at about 0. 10 123 . During this process. again.
1309 2.2857 g CO2 eq/MJ FAME g CO2 eq/MJ FAME g CO2 eq/MJ FAME g CO2 eq/MJ FAME g CO2 eq/MJ FAME g CO2 eq/MJ FAME g CO2 eq/MJ FAME g CO2 eq/MJ FAME 1.12 A reliable and reasonable ﬁgure for GHG emissions of current technologies in vegetable oil esteriﬁcation can be found in Weindorf (2008).9087 13. 12 Note that we do not take into account even more sophisticated technologies such as ethyl transesteriﬁcation.1949 g CO2 eq/MJ FAME 5. 3. Although the GHG emissions credit of the by-product glycerol—which reduces the total GHG emissions value—supposed in Weindorf (2008) is quite small (1.2 g CO2 eq/MJ) and well below the calculations shown in the table above. (2007) and Suppalakpanya et al.18500 0.1111 0.0844 0.0041 0. since the CO2 emissions from the 11 For some technical details of the esteriﬁcation and puriﬁcation process see Chongkhong et al.05900 g/MJ FAME g/MJ FAME g/MJ FAME g/MJ FAME MJ/MJ FAME 0. (2010). the average CO2 emission resulting from the combust of fossil diesel.1515 0.0818 0. is problematic.0872 5.0014 MJ/MJ Steam MJ/MJ FAME MJ/MJ Steam MJ/MJ FAME 0.9965 105. New technologies include bio-methanol.442 Table 4 Esteriﬁcation process—background data GHG emissions calculations Value Yield FAME By-product reﬁned glycerol 0.4142 0. 123 .5213 g CO2 eq/MJ FAME far below the overall emissions of older procedures. co-processing or hydrogenisation which offer much lower GHG emissions than current methyl esteriﬁcation practices.05000 0. we use the value of 7.55000 0.0760 MJ/MJ FAME MJ/MJ FAME 0.06800 0. C.1 g CO2/MJ FAME in our alternative scenarios.8452 10.11 This is the case for both this esteriﬁcation process and the production of methanol which accounts for most of the overall GHG emissions associated with the whole process.00 G. Pehnelt.6 Reference value The reference value for the GHG emission savings.0304 g CO2 eq/MJ FAME 0.0200 0. synthethanol as well as lower temperatures and lower energy input in the very esteriﬁcation process.7408 g CO2 eq/MJ FAME 0. Vietze Unit MJ FAME/MJ RefPO kg/t FAME GHG emissions Value Unit Energy consumption Electricity Steam (from NG boiler) NG Boiler CH4 and N2O emissions from NG boiler Natural gas input/MJ steam Natural gas Electricity input/MJ steam Electricity Chemicals Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) Hydrochloric acid (HCl) Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) Methanol Total gross GHG emissions By-Product Glycerol Total net GHG emissions 0.
transport and distribution of fossil diesel (without direct emissions from combustion) Source g CO2 eq/MJ diesel Silva et al.8 g CO2 eq/MJ.1 g CO2 eq/MJ for direct combustion). The European Union (EU) (2009) sets the reference value for GHG emissions from fossil fuel at 83. Given these ﬁgures. is also less efﬁcient (Pehnelt and Vietze 2009).7 Allocation of by-products Like many other production processes.3 g CO2 eq/MJ (73. Therefore. with almost a third of the coal’s chemical energy loss in terms of waste heat in the conversion process. Future extraction of fossil oil is likely to cause substantially higher GHG emissions than the EU reference value. we refer to a third reference value for palm oil used for electricity production. It should be noticed that the values given above do not take into account the exhaustibility of crude oil reserves. requires large quantities of steam. There are quite a few methodologies of integrating the allocation of coproducts into LCA. Allocation of by-products is the method by which input energy and material ﬂows as well as output emissions are distributed among the product and co-products.3 and 87. The very method applied may have considerable impacts on the ﬁnal results and is also an area of extensive debates and discrepancies among different LCA studies (Menichetti and Otto 2009). 123 . 3. (2006) 14. to correctly evaluate the impacts of biofuels. the extraction of oil from bituminous sands. the future extraction and use of the remaining conventional oil reserves will produce higher GHG emissions than today. owing to the smaller size and geographic inaccessibility of the remaining productive ﬁelds (Cockerill and Martin 2008).2 GM et al. energy or exergy allocation and substation method. The EU reference value for GHG emissions is close to the lower bound of this range and therefore rather underestimating the carbon savings of biofuels (Pehnelt and Vietze 2009). Furthermore. in all scenarios. economic allocation. widely spread especially in Canada. That is why we are using two different reference values in our models.13 13 See for instance Weidema (2001). As the generation of electricity operates with reﬁned plant oil (without transesteriﬁcation). (2002) 10. biofuel production is a multi-input/multi-output product system. We use the value of 91 g CO2 eq/MJ for electricity production from fossil oil regarding and the ‘Guidance on Sustainable Biomass Production’ (BiokraftNachV) published by the German Federal Agency for Food and Agriculture (BLE 2009) and the EU-Directive 2009/28/EC (European Union (EU) 2009). the total emissions in the life cycle of fossil diesel vary between 83. co-products need to be taken into account as well. as calculated by recent studies. For example. we calculate the CO2 emissions savings of electricity production after the reﬁnery stage.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel 443 Table 5 GHG emission from production. Table 5 summarises the emissions generated in the production phase of European diesel. the coal-to-liquid process technology.2 extraction of these fuels have to be taken into account and these emissions vary depending on the very process. Similarly. among others mass allocation.2 CONCAWE et al. and the fuel produced using these resources is expected to cause about 50 % more GHG emissions compared with the extraction and use of conventional crude oil. Additionally. which is seen as an alternative to conventional oil resources. (2006) 14.
especially if high value by-products such as palm kernel oil are part of the production chain. with the results usually within a very narrow range. 15 Note that the transportation of FFB and other pre-products in the country of origin is considered in the plantation step in most scenarios. The most common allocation method is the energy allocation which takes the energy content of the by-products into account. reﬁnery and transport from South-East Asia to Europe. See the detailed tables in the Appendix. (2006). Figure 1 shows the GHG emissions of every single step of the production of reﬁned palm oil (g CO2 eq/MJ RefPO). and Silva et al. the methods applied by the European Union (EU) (2009). the results are more in favour of palm oil biodiesel than for other oil seeds such as rapeseed.444 G. this is very difﬁcult for regulatory implementation purposes (Menichetti and Otto 2009). a combination of energy content allocation and economic allocation still seems to be more appropriate to assess the overall impact of biofuels over their lifetime. we derive the GHG emissions of every step of the palm biodiesel production chain. economic allocation methods signiﬁcantly increase the volatility of results and therefore their uncertainty. takes the actual economic value of the co-products into account and therefore provides an (potential) income perspective. The ﬁrst value shows the GHG emissions savings of palm oil used for electricity production regarding RED (EU 2009) and the ‘Guidance on Sustainable Biomass Production’ (Biokraft-NachV) published by the German Federal Agency for Food and Agriculture (BLE) and is the technical aspect of chapter IX ‘Concrete calculation of greenhouse gas reductions’ (BLE 2009).14 Because we want to be as close as much to the current methods of calculating GHG emissions saving potentials used for regulatory purposes. This allocation method is indeed not very generous to palm oil–based biodiesel. Ideally. However. Additionally we estimate the GHG emissions saving compared with current LCA of fossil fuel emissions as applied by CONCAWE et al. This is indeed a pragmatic approach since the caloriﬁc value of certain by-products can be measured relatively easily. economic allocation. 4 Results By using the above mentioned values. namely plantation. because prices may ﬂuctuate quite rapidly. oil mill. C. However. The second value displays the saving potential compared with the value of fossil oil as stated by the EU-Directive (EU 2009). (2006). In all scenarios. for example. Such an assessment seems to be the preferable one for LCA since it reﬂects the actual market conditions more properly than other methods. we also use—according to IFEU (2010) and BioGrace (2010)—an allocation scheme based on the energy content of the by-products. one could choose a mass-based allocation scheme.15 14 Note that mass allocation turns out to be much more generous to biofuels than other methods (Menichetti and Otto 2009). using economic allocation methods. Moreover. we present three values for the overall GHG emissions saving potential regarding the respective fossil fuel comparator. This is likely the reason that most LCA studies on biofuels focus instead on other allocation methods. Furthermore. methods that take the energy content into account or an economic allocation. However. Pehnelt. this approach would require analysts to re-conduct an LCA study several times and adjust the results accordingly. The latter. Vietze In order to assess the effects of by-products. 123 . we ran estimations on the GHG emissions saving potential of palm biodiesel in different scenarios.
1 445 55 g CO2 eq/MJ RefPO 13.93 -0.4 -5 transport (to EU) refinery oil mill plantation total GHG emissions Scenario 1 4.73 41. dependent on the very conditions such as fertiliser use.68 9. etc. However. 16 We calculate the GHG emissions of every single step per MJ reﬁned palm oil. 123 . we are using a rather narrow and conservative bandwidth of the efﬁciency of the full production process. as explained in the previous chapters.43 Fig.65 0. in most small-scale oil mills.93 25. 1 GHG emissions of palm oil production per stage The GHG emissions in connection with the cultivation process (plantation) account for about 9. The GHG emissions of the transport of the reﬁned palm oil to the importing country (EU) are also comparably small even when very conservative ﬁgures are applied higher than the JEC standard value.93 25.95 0.95 0.68 9.30 Scenario 4 4.61 10.7–12.23 43.65 0.3 41.68 9.9 43. The efﬁciency of the milling and reﬁning process indeed has an impact on the very output and therefore the ﬁgures calculated for pre-processing steps.93 25.89 9. GHG emissions associated with the reﬁnery process are marginal. If the methane emissions in the milling process are not captured (scenarios 1–7). The results clearly indicate that methane capture is the most desirable technology since GHG emissions could be dramatically reduced if a full methane capture in the milling process is applied.93 25.95 0.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel GHG Emissions of Palm Oil Production per Stage (g CO2 eq/MJ RefPO) 43.9 41. the oil mill process accounts for the highest GHG emissions because of the highly GHG relevant emissions of methane in POME.2 g CO2 eq per MJ reﬁned palm oil.73 40.88 Scenario 3 4.77 12. However.16 The implementation of speciﬁcation of land use or land use change might signiﬁcantly affect these calculations. ranging from huge GHG credits in the case of formerly degraded or marginal land to moderate GHG credits or GHG emissions close to zero in the case of formerly agricultural area in use to moderate additional GHG emissions in the case of secondary rainforest and an initial carbon debt in the case of primary rainforest on peat land.93 28.73 41. 2.88 Scenario 2 4.3 40.73 40.23 43.05 Scenario 8 3.1).56 45.00 Scenario 6 3. this technology is not available yet and investments in this technology might be too expensive for small operators. However.30 Scenario 5 3.95 0.93 25.65 0. In order to reduce the range of our results.95 0.93 25.00 Scenario 7 4.73 13.0 40.68 9.77 12.0 45. we do not cover land use change explicitly in our calculations since this issue is subject to separate criteria in the Renewable Energy Directive (European Union (EU) 2009). efforts to introduce this technology sector wide are already under way (see Sect.
123 . Current comments and data indicate that the output per hectare might be even higher with new varieties of oil palm and current cultivation technologies. In scenario 2 (Table 9). we apply a value for GHG emissions in the esteriﬁcation process conducted by calculations based on conservative values. C. the value on GHG emission (Weindorf 2008) is applied in scenario 1. we use the most current values on plantation (fertiliser and pesticide input. In scenario 1. In general. we use the average of the range of values that can be found in studies on palm oil (see again the paragraphs on the methodology in this paper). since the information could not be veriﬁed through the published sources. Because of the higher GHG emissions of the esteriﬁcation process in this scenario. dependent on the very fossil comparator used (see the two charts of Fig. For all of our scenarios.0 %. 17 It shall be mentioned again that an economic or mass allocation of by-products would produce results more beneﬁcial to palm oil biodiesel than the energy content allocation method used here. reﬁnery and transport as in Scenario 1 are used. achievements in POME treatment). we calculate the GHG emission saving potentials of reﬁned palm oil as an input in power plants (electricity production) as well as the GHG emissions saving potentials of palm oil–based biodiesel (FAME) produced by using common but not highly sophisticated esteriﬁcation technologies. Pehnelt.0 % (comparator II) saving compared with fossil diesel.446 G.5 and 41. All relevant data and results are documented in detail in the Appendix of the paper. regardless of the further processing of these palm kernels which usually provides high value products. 3). However. the energy content of entire palm kernels is considered as a co-product. we could not verify values other then those used in our baseline scenario. Namely. we do not use these ﬁgures in our scenarios. For the reﬁnery and transport stage. oil mill. An estimation of the most current data on the production process of palm biodiesel is used in scenario 3 (Table 10). the GHG emission saving potential of reﬁned palm oil used for electricity production in power plants is 52 % compared with fossil electricity production (see Fig. the GHG emissions of the production of reﬁned palm oil are supposed to range from about 40 g CO2 eq per megajoule (scenario 5 and 6) to about 45 g CO2 eq per megajoule (scenario 7). the GHG emission saving fails to reach the 35 % threshold by just a few tenths of a percentage point (see two charts of Fig. the EU target is easily reached. In order to get closer to current production patterns. 2).17 For esteriﬁcation.0 % saving compared with conventional energy production and 41. the oil mill stage (output. Only in the worst case scenario with the low fossil fuel comparator I. The GHG emissions saving potential of biodiesel used in vehicle engines compared with fossil fuel ranges between 38. The same data for plantation. The results of scenario 1 (for an overview of the scenario assumptions see Table 7) indicate GHG emissions savings of palm oil biodiesel clearly beyond the EU’s 35 % threshold. and esteriﬁcation (energy input) available in reliable sources in scenario 3. The emission saving values reﬂect the observed improvements along the production chain: With 55. output of FFB).6 % (comparator I) and 44. Vietze Overall. 3). In scenario 1 (see Table 6). an increase in the output and a decrease in the input ﬁgures because of improvements in the entire production chain have been observed in recent years. the GHG saving values are slightly inferior to scenario 1.
FAO (2004). UPB (2006).2 100. Subranamiam (2006a). FAO (2004).093. IFA et al.000 t FFB per year t PKO per 1. Andersen et al. Henson (2004). FAO (2004).23 kg active ingredient per ha per year l per ha per year g CO2 eq per kg FFB g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO Singh (2006). Energy content of EPK considered. (2002) Yusoff and Hansen (2007). (1981) Subranamiam et al. (2006). FAO (2004). (2002) Yusoff and Hansen (2007).000 t FFB per year Malaysian average 2003–2005 given in MPOB (2005) and MPOB (2006) Palm kernel oil (by-product) Palm kernel meal (by-product) Entire palm kernels (by-product) Input/POME n-Hexane CH4 emissions from POME Energy consumption Fuel oil 0 0 53. Henson (2004).000 t FFB per year t EPK per 1. UPB (2006). (2004). IFA et al.000 t FFB per year 123 . Unilever (1990) Note: Entire palm kernels not used for CPO but higher valued products.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Table 6 Scenario 1—Entire PK. (2002) Singh (2006) 18.870 kg FFB per ha per year FAOSTAT (2006) Unit Source 447 P2O5-fertiliser 70 kg P2O5 per ha per year K2O-fertiliser 204 kg K2O per ha per year CaO-fertiliser 0 kg CaO per ha per year Pesticides Diesel (for all activities and transport) GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation Oil mill Main output Produced CPO 2. Subranamiam (2006a). Ma et al. UPB (2006). Subranamiam (2006a). (2002) Yusoff and Hansen (2007). Henson (2004). Yusoff and Hansen (2007).000 t FFB per year g CO2 eq per kg CPO 370 l per 1.6 t per 1. but not the higher economic value of PKO produced via cold pressing 199. UPB (2006).000 t FFB per year t PKM per 1.2 Malaysian average 2003–2005 given in MPOB (2005) and MPOB (2006) Schmidt (2007) Calculations based on Yacob et al. IFA et al.8 t CPO per 1. Henson (2004).35 12. (2005) 0 1. Subranamiam (2006a).73 58. IFA et al. Singh (1999).22 452. esteriﬁcation latest values Value Plantation Output Yield FFB per ha Input N-fertiliser 105 kg N per ha per year Yusoff and Hansen (2007).
Singh (2006).612 33.900. Vietze Subranamiam et al. Henson (2004).000 t CPO per year t per 1.000 t CPO per year kWh per 1.493 Malaysia (high value) 1. (2003). (2005). Husain et al.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.51 25. (2005).58 0.77 957 t RefPO per 1. Department of Environment (1999) Subranamiam et al.32 953.0 0 0.000 t CPO per year kWh per 1. Pehnelt. version 31-72008 GHG emission after reﬁnery GHG emissions of reﬁnery GHG emissions of reﬁnery Transport (to Europe) Transport (overland) Average distance oil mill/reﬁnery/port g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 200 km Schmidt (2007) 123 .3 0 8.440.863 – Note: Diesel use for transport already covered in the cultivation stage g CO2 eq per kg CPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 1. Department of Environment (1999) Schmidt (2007).448 Table 6 continued Value Natural gas 0 Unit kWh per 1.000 t CPO per year l per 1.000 t FFB per year Source G.93 Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) JEC E3-database. Henson (2004).000 t FFB per year kWh per 1. Kang (2006).000 t CPO per year Schmidt (2007).345.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.44 34. (20060 Subranamiam (2006a) Electricity (external) 0 Surplus electricity (output) Surplus steam (output) Allocation factor after byproducts Transport Average distance plantation/oil mill GHG emissions after oil mill GHG emissions of oil mill GHG emissions of oil mill Reﬁnery Output Produced RefPO Input Fuller’s earth Energy consumption Natural gas Fuel oil Electricity (external) Electricity mix 8. C. Singh and Thorairaj (2006). UPRD (2004) UPRD (2004) 4. Chavalparit et al.
CONCAWE et al.49 264.88 52.623.95 1.0 % g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 91 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) km PortWorld Distances (2011) Schmidt (2007) Truck for liquids (Diesel) Diesel Unit Source Schmidt (2007) 449 Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Even if we rely on the inferior values for esteriﬁcation (WTT Appendix v3) but using the same ﬁgures for plantation.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Table 6 continued Value Vehicle used transporting RefPO Used fuel for vehicle Transport (ship) Average distance AsiaEurope Vehicle used transporting RefPO Used fuel for vehicle GHG emissions after transport GHG emissions of transport GHG emissions of transport Total GHG emissions RefPO GHG emission savings RefPO compared with fossil comparator (electricity production) Esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions after Esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of esteriﬁcation Total CO2 emissions FAME Total CO2 emissions FAME 1.896. with emission savings of 55.8 % (fuel I) and 40.12 7.0 % (electricity) 37. 123 .3 g CO2 eq/MJ (Silva et al.15 4.8 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) 87. and transport as in scenario 3.59 183.975 Ship/tanker 50kt (Fuel oil) HFO 1. milling.5 % 41. 2006) Weindorf (2008) Weindorf (2008) 14.896.3 % (fuel II)). 2006.59 43.623. reﬁnery.0 % 83.53 g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME Fossil comparator GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator I (fuel diesel) GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator II (fuel diesel) 38.49 51.10 1. the results exceed the 35 % threshold (all comparators (see scenario 4 in Table 11.
we use the latest values on input and output ﬁgures as in scenario 3. reﬁnery. However. respectively. Again. conservative values esteriﬁcation Current values plantation. Pehnelt. Vietze GHG Emissions Savings Refined Palm Oil vs. these products are high valued stocks with an economic value 123 . 39. transport. Table 14). transport. esteriﬁcation Current values plantation. 41. Reference Value (electricity production) 100% percent reference value (electricity production) 85% 75% 52% 52% 55% 55% 56% 56% 50% 50% 25% 0% GHG emissions savings Scenario 1 52% Scenario 2 Scenario 3 52% 55% Scenario 4 Scenario 5 55% 56% Scenario 6 Scenario 7 56% 50% Scenario 8 85% Fig. transport. esteriﬁcation Methane capturing in oil mill. 37. transport according JEC. 43. 45. reﬁnery. oil mill. oil mill. oil mill. current values plantation. conservative values esteriﬁcation Current values plantation.0 % (electricity).6 % (fuel II)) well exceeding the EU target. reﬁnery. current values esteriﬁcation Current values plantation. It is important to note that only the caloric heating value of these by-products is considered in our estimation. transport according JEC. we run the same estimation as in scenarios 3 (esteriﬁcation according Weindorf 2008) and 4 (esteriﬁcation according CONCAWE et al. oil mill.2 % (fuel I).8 % (fuel II) for scenario 6]—all above the EU emission target of 35 %—could be estimated. oil mill. current values esteriﬁcation Average values plantation.1 % (fuel I). reﬁnery. oil mill. but using the JEC (2011) default value on transport stage of 135 g CO2 eq per kg RefPO (see JEC E3-database (version 31-7-2008)).5 % (fuel II) for scenario 5 and 56. reﬁnery. oil mill. we could derive emission saving ﬁgures (50.0 % (electricity). reﬁnery. current values esteriﬁcation In scenario 5 (Table 12) and 6 (Table 13). current values plantation. transport according JEC. 2006). transport. 2 GHG emissions savings of reﬁned palm oil used in oil ﬁred power plants Table 7 Overview scenario assumptions Scenario Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Main assumptions Average values plantation.0 % (electricity).450 G. reﬁnery. higher GHG emissions saving values [56. Even if we analyse the production chain of palm biodiesel under consideration of a further processing (and the supplemental energy input) of the entire palm kernels to palm kernel oil and palm kernel meal (scenario 7.3 % (fuel I). transport. C. oil mill. reﬁnery. 39. conservative values esteriﬁcation Palm kernel oil as additional by-product. As this default value is lower than our conservative transport ﬁgures.
7% 41. 2006.7% 35% 41.5% 35% 41.3% 45.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel GHG Emissions Savings FAME vs.4% 35% GHG Emissions Savings FAME vs.3% 35% 45.3% 41. namely methane capturing (and using as bio gas) of POME emissions in the palm oil mill. Reference Value I 451 75.5% 34. and 75.0% 37.6% 43. That is why the pure energy content allocation does not reﬂect the real allocation pattern. 3 GHG emissions savings of palm oil–based biofuel considerably exceeding the caloric value.8% 35% 39.8% 39.4% percent reference value I (FAME biodiesel) 75% 50% 38. in this study.1% 35% 75.2% 37. Reference Value II 76. 2006) compared with fossil diesel. The emission savings values ﬁgure with 85. Table 15). These saving values are not only way beyond the RED’s thresholds but also far higher than the GHG emissions savings calculated by the Directive typical (62 %) and default (56 %) values given in the case of palm oil with methane capture.6% 35% 76.4 % (EU 2009) respective 76.1% 25% 0% GHG emissions savings RED threshold Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 38. However. replacing the use of soybean meal. In the last scenario (scenario 8.6% 25% 0% GHG emissions savings RED threshold Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 41. we use the latest values with the transport default value according to JEC (2011).0% 44.6% 35% 37.2% 35% 39.3% 37. Palm kernel oil is used as edible oil in food production. while palm kernel meal is sold as fodder for livestock.5% 35% 34.0 % compared with conventional electricity production.4% 35% Fig.8% 35% 43.5% 40.0% 35% 37.0% 35% 40.4 % (CONCAWE et al.4% percent reference value II (FAME biodiesel) 75% 50% 41. 123 . we refrain from doing so because we want to be as close as possible to the current methodology used by the European Union (EU) (2009).3% 35% 44. Basically. we suggest to alternatively considering the economic allocation in LCA which better reﬂects the economic and social impact of the whole production chain. Silva et al. As in scenario 5. we apply a technology not yet commonly used but not unusual either.3% 35% 37.8% 39.
Not only will these measures undermine conﬁdence in Europe’s low-carbon ambitions. 123 . We could not reproduce the EU’s GHG saving values for palm oil. and reproduction in any medium. the conclusions of this analysis demonstrate that the methodology employed by the JRC lacks credibility. distorting technical parameters in legislation to limit entry into the European market would be costly for consumers and businesses while exposing the EU to unnecessary trade disputes and possible retaliation. These ﬁndings and concerns surrounding the trade implications of the Directive give cause for serious concern within the EU community regarding the viability of the system to effectively deliver the GHG emissions savings that are required in the legislation. we cannot reproduce the GHG emissions saving values for palm oil biodiesel given in the annex of the RED. The EU has been a leader in the promotion of low-carbon solutions to energy needs and the development of technologies that will spur a new age of energy generation and transportation. untested sustainability criteria and trade barriers to limit competition from third countries. 12.452 G. and institute greater transparency in the process. Vietze Overall. Based on the standard calculation scheme proposed by the Renewable Energy Directive (European Union (EU) 2009) and using current data of palm oil biodiesel production published in various reliable sources. our results indicate emissions saving values for the GHG emissions savings potential of palm oil biodiesel not only far above the 19 per cent default and 36 per cent typical value published in RED but also beyond the 35 per cent threshold. and subsequent efforts to gain further clarity from the JRC were not successful. utilising palm oil—one of the more controversial biofuel sources—as a case study of this process. 14. 13. our conservative calculations based on JEC (2011) background data and current publications on palm oil production result in GHG emissions saving potentials of palm oil– based biodiesel fairly above the 35 % threshold. Unfortunately. 5 Summary and conclusion The purpose of this review was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the metrics considered in developing the GHG emissions saving values (typical and default) in the Directive. since the EU began to pursue this goal. 11. Our results conﬁrm the ﬁndings by other studies and challenge the ofﬁcial typical and default values published in RED. distribution. As a result. Appendix See Tables 8. the debate has increasingly turned to how these efforts can be increasingly limited. While limiting imports of inefﬁcient and environmentally damaging biofuel sources should be supported. Our results rather conﬁrm the higher values obtained by other studies mentioned in our last paper (Pehnelt and Vietze 2009) and elsewhere in this study. Unfortunately. C. 15. however. they will also harm the global cooperation that is a key to achieving these goals. through introduction of new. 9. provided the original author(s) and the source are credited. In contrast. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use. Pehnelt. the authors of this report support the efforts by environmental NGOs to gain further clarity on the European Commission’s and EU’s calculations and deliberations on the assessment of biofuels. 10.
90 Natural gas (4.018 0.679 1.09 1.000 km.09 1.00 0.231 gN2O/kg gCO2-eq/kg MJfossil/kg 48.984 1.917.20 – 100.249 129.012 579.964 Methane Fuels: liquids (also conversion inputs) Diesel 87.98 HFO for maritime transport 87.737 0.013.23 9.000 km.527 1.886.00 0.000 66.128 50.64 – 84.827.10 43.571 0.40 Fossil energy input/heat input rate (LHV) gN2O/MJ gCO2-eq/MJ MJfossil/MJ MJ/kg Global warming potentials (GWP’s) CO2 CH4 N2O Agro inputs GHG emission coefﬁcient gCO2/kg N-fertiliser (kg N) 2.681 0.00 0.000 0.00 298.887 K2O-fertiliser (kg K2O) 536.50 26.Table 8 Background data gCO2-eq/g 1.509 9.128 1.311 CaO-fertiliser (kg CaO) 119.50 40.80 453 123 .967 11.00 25.98 87.00 0.29 – 0.198 0.00 87.64 Gasoline – HFO 84.005 P2O5-fertiliser (kg P2O5) 964.00 – 0.66 1.15 1. EU Mix quality) 62.97 268.216 25.595 67.642 5. Russian NG quality) 61.331 1.052 1.99 15.00 – 0.502 Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel GHG emission coefﬁcient gCH4/MJ gCO2/MJ Fuels (gas) 0.81 19.20 Ethanol – Methanol 92.575 Natural gas (4.025.116 Pesticides 9.00 – 0.00 Fossil energy input gCH4/kg 8.16 43.20 40.198 0.68 1.
73 LHV MJ/kg 45.79 Conversion inputs GHG emission coefﬁcient gCO2/MJ n-Hexane 80.454 Table 8 continued Fossil energy input/heat input rate (LHV) gN2O/MJ – – – – – – – – 37.25 129.29 0.32 gCO2-eq/kg 3. Vietze Fuller’s earth 197.01 gN2O/MJ gCO2-eq/MJ 128.08 gCO2/kg Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) 2.00 44.00 gN2O/MJ gCO2-eq/MJ 80.00 .36 Electricity EU mix LV 120.80 199.80 16.00 Fossil energy input gCH4/MJ 0.70 2.00 LHV MJ/kg 24.10 0.01 MJfossil/MJ 0.53 gN2O/kg 0.81 MJfossil/MJ 2.029.20 44.79 Fossil energy input gCH4/MJ 0.00 G.93 0.11 MJ/kg 28.00 17.00 37.00 36.54 gCO2-eq/MJ MJfossil/MJ MJ/kg 123 GHG emission coefﬁcient gCO2/MJ gCH4/MJ FAME – – Syn diesel (BtL) – – HVO – – PVO – – Fuels/feedstock/byproducts—solids FFB BioOil (byproduct FAME from waste oil) Glycerol Palm kernel meal Palm oil Electricity GHG emission coefﬁcient gCO2/MJ Electricity EU mix MV 119.01 0.29 0. C.01 gCH4/kg 8.776.57 2. Pehnelt.00 21.04 0.
01 gCH4/tkm Transport exhaust gas emissions gN2O/tkm 0.20 0.00 0.00 gCO2-eq/MJ 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 Transport efﬁciencies Truck for dry product (Diesel) Truck for liquids (Diesel) Truck for FFB transport (Diesel) Tanker truck MB2218 for vinasse transport Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Tanker truck with water cannons Dumpster truck MB2213 for ﬁlter mud transport Ocean bulk carrier (Fuel oil) Ship/product tanker 50kt (Fuel oil) Local (10 km) pipeline Rail (Electric.00 0.01 2.94 3.02 471.38 Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) 1.00 0.60 0. MV) Emissions from steam production CH4 and N2O emissions from NG boiler CH4 and N2O emissions from NG CHP 455 123 .20 1.79 10.00 Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) 193.00 0.49 0.00 0.16 0.01 2.00 0.90 gCO2/kg Hydrochloric acid (HCl) 717.00 0.046.00 0.01 1.21 GHG emission coefﬁcient gCH4/MJ 0.49 Pure CaO for processes 1.00 0.Table 8 continued gCH4/kg 1.40 0.01 0.013.60 3.00 0.01 0.01 1.031.13 6.00 0.00 0.00 gN2O/MJ 0.55 Fuel efﬁciency MJ/tkm 0.202.12 0.64 0.83 0.94 1.00 208.00 0.43 13.00 0.03 753.00 0.22 4.00 0.40 0.65 0.00 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) 438.00 0.00 0.17 gN2O/kg gCO2-eq/kg MJ/kg 15.
68 2.89 0. Vietze Source: JEC E3-database (version 31-7-2008) . 2004/Andersen et al.59 1.222.71 235.16 0.03 0.093.37 0.55 gCO2-eq/kg CPO 1.74 43. Pehnelt. 2006) Natural gas in steam boiler Electricity Ghana Electricity Indonesia Electricity Kenya Electricity Malaysia Electricity Thailand G.56 Other GHG-related values Palm kernels Palm kernel oil POME emissions (JEC E3-database. 1981/Yacob et al.05 gN2O/MJ gCO2-eq/MJ MJfossil/MJ 123 Electricity production GHG emission coefﬁcient gCO2/MJ Electricity (NG CCGT) 114.77 Electricity (Straw ST) 5.088. C.456 Table 8 continued Fossil energy input gCH4/MJ 0.48 0.48 Electricity (Lignite ST) 284.08 LHV MJ/kg 22. 2006) POME emissions (Ma et al.90 43.53 252.00 0.56 279.96 2.71 gCO2-eq/MJ 70. 2004/Yacob et al.66 146.62 1.00 0.00 10. version 31-7-2008) POME emissions (Singh 1999/Ma et al.01 2.00 35.47 91.50 GHG emission coefﬁcient gCH4/kg CPO 48.
8 t CPO per 1. Henson (2004). 2006) standard Value Plantation Output Yield FFB per ha Input N-fertiliser 105 kg N per ha per year Yusoff and Hansen (2007).Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Table 9 Scenario 2—entire PK. Subranamiam (2006a). Henson (2004). Andersen et al. Henson (2004). Subranamiam (2006a). Energy content of EPK considered. Singh (1999). (2002) Singh (2006) 18. (2002) Yusoff and Hansen (2007). IFA et al.000 t FFB per year Malaysian average 2003–2005 given in MPOB (2005) and MPOB (2006) Palm kernel oil (by-product) Palm kernel meal (by-product) Entire palm kernels (by-product) Input/POME n-Hexane CH4 emissions from POME 0 0 53.23 kg active ingredient per ha per year l per ha per year g CO2 eq per kg FFB g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO Singh (2006).73 58. (2004). Subranamiam (2006a). UPB (2006). UPB (2006). esteriﬁcation WTT (CONCAWE et al. (2002) Yusoff and Hansen (2007). Subranamiam (2006a). Unilever (1990) Note: Entire Palm kernels not used for CPO but higher valued products.6 t per 1. FAO (2004). IFA et al. (2006). Henson (2004). UPB (2006).000 t FFB per year t PKO per 1. IFA et al. (2002) Yusoff and Hansen (2007).2 100. FAO (2004).870 kg FFB per ha per year FAOSTAT (2006) Unit Source 457 P2O5-fertiliser 70 kg P2O5 per ha per year K2O-fertiliser 204 kg K2O per ha per year CaO-fertiliser 0 kg CaO per ha per year Pesticides Diesel (for all activities and transport) GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation Oil mill Main output Produced CPO 2.093.000 t FFB per year t EPK per 1. FAO (2004).2 Malaysian average 2003–2005 given in MPOB (2005) and MPOB (2006) Schmidt (2007) Calculations based on Yacob et al.000 t FFB per year t PKM per 1.000 t FFB per year g CO2 eq per kg CPO 123 . UPB (2006). IFA et al. (1981) 0 1. FAO (2004). but not the higher economic value of PKO produced via cold pressing 199.22 452. Yusoff and Hansen (2007). Ma et al.35 12.
493 Malaysia (high value) 1. (2006) Subranamiam (2006a) Electricity (external) 0 Surplus electricity (output) Surplus steam (output) Allocation factor after byproducts Transport Average distance plantation/oil mill GHG emissions after oil mill GHG emissions of oil mill GHG emissions of oil mill Reﬁnery Output Produced RefPO Input Fuller’s earth Energy consumption Natural gas Fuel oil Electricity (external) Electricity mix 8.345. Department of Environment (1999) Subranamiam et al. Kang (2006).000 t CPO per year kWh per 1. Henson (2004).000 t CPO per year kWh per 1. Henson (2004).000 t CPO per year Schmidt (2007). Pehnelt. Department of Environment (1999) Schmidt (2007).32 953.612 33.000 t CPO per year l per 1.3 0 8.51 25.58 0.77 957 t RefPO per 1. UPRD (2004) UPRD (2004) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) JEC E3-database. Husain et al.863 – Note: Diesel use for transport already covered in the cultivation stage. Chavalparit et al.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.000 t FFB per year Unit Source G. (2005) Subranamiam et al. (2003).44 34.000 t CPO per year t per 1.93 GHG emission after reﬁnery GHG emissions of reﬁnery GHG emissions of reﬁnery g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 123 . Singh (2006).458 Table 9 continued Value Energy consumption Fuel oil Natural gas 370 0 l per 1. (2005).000 t FFB per year kWh per 1. g CO2 eq per kg CPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 1. (2005).000 t FFB per year kWh per 1. version 31-7-2008 4. C.900 0 0. Singh and Thorairaj (2006). Vietze Subranamiam et al.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.440.
0 % g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 91 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) km PortWorld Distances (2011) Schmidt (2007) 200 Truck for liquids (Diesel) Diesel km Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Unit Source 459 Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) 123 .623.76 g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME Fossil comparator GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator I (fuel diesel) GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator II (fuel diesel) 34.95 1.975 Ship/tanker 50kt (Fuel oil) HFO 1.88 52.3 % 83.59 43. 2006) Calculations based on WTT Appendix (v3) Calculations based on WTT Appendix (v3) 14.79 10.3 g CO2 eq/MJ (Silva et al. CONCAWE et al.29 2.59 183.15 54.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Table 9 continued Value Transport (to Europe) Transport (overland) Average distance oil mill/reﬁnery/port Vehicle used transporting RefPO Used fuel for vehicle Transport (ship) Average distance AsiaEurope Vehicle used transporting RefPO Used fuel for vehicle GHG emissions after transport GHG emissions of transport GHG emissions of transport Total GHG emissions RefPO GHG emission savings RefPO compared with fossil comparator (electricity production) Esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions after esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of esteriﬁcation Total CO2 emissions FAME Total CO2 emissions FAME 2.15 4.623.7 % 37.15 382. 2006.8 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) 87.015.015.
44 0 2. latest values Value Plantation Output Yield FFB per ha Input N-fertiliser P2O5-fertiliser K2O-fertiliser CaO-fertiliser Pesticides Diesel (for all activities and transport) GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation Oil mill Main output Produced CPO Palm kernel oil (byproduct) Palm kernel meal (byproduct) Entire palm kernels (byproduct) Input/POME n-Hexane CH4 emissions from POME Energy consumption Fuel oil Natural gas 370 0 l per 1. Henson (2004).000 t FFB per year kWh per 1. (2005). Energy content of EPK considered. Pehnelt. Henson (2004) Singh (2006) Singh (2006) Note: Entire palm kernels not used for CPO but higher valued products.5 0 0 53. (2006) Electricity (external) 0 Surplus electricity (output) 8.40 360.460 Table 10 Scenario 3—Entire PK. Department of Environment (1999) Schmidt (2007). Ma et al. (1981) Subranamiam et al. Henson (2004).000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.04 9. Singh and Thorairaj (2006). (2003).000 t FFB per year t PKO per 1.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1. (2005).000 t FFB per year t EPK per 1.56 169.000 t FFB per year t PKM per 1.7 t per 1. (2005) Subranamiam et al. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007). C. but not the higher economic value of PKO produced via cold pressing Malaysian average in 2005 given in MPOB (2006) Malaysian average in 2005 given in MPOB (2006) Calculations based on Yacob et al.52 28. Husain et al.73 53. Department of Environment (1999) Subranamiam et al.4 t CPO per 1.000 t FFB per year 95. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).900 123 .900 kg FFB per ha per year Unit Source G. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).6 80. (2004). Vietze FAOSTAT (2006) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).000 t FFB per year g CO2 eq per kg CPO 201.73 kg N per ha per year kg P2O5 per ha per year kg K2O per ha per year kg CaO per ha per year kg active ingredient per ha per year l per ha per year g CO2 eq per kg FFB g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 20. (2006).000 t FFB per year 0 1088. Chavalparit et al. Andersen et al.
612 33.68 JEC E3-database.22 25.000 t FFB per year Source Subranamiam (2006a) 461 Note: Diesel use for transport already covered in the cultivation stage g CO2 eq per kg CPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 1.000 t CPO per year kWh per 1.493 Malaysia (high value) 1.864 Unit kWh per 1.253.344.85 950. version 31-72008 GHG emission after reﬁnery GHG emissions of reﬁnery GHG emissions of reﬁnery Transport (to Europe) Transport (overland) Average distance oil mill/reﬁnery/port Vehicle used transporting RefPO Used fuel for vehicle Transport (ship) Average distance AsiaEurope 200 Truck for liquids (Diesel) Diesel 14.93 g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO kWh per 1. UPRD (2004) – 0 0. Singh (2006).85 34.000 t CPO per year UPRD (2004) 957 t RefPO per 1.58 0.3 t per 1.975 km Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) km PortWorld Distances (2011) 123 .000 t CPO per year Schmidt (2007).000 t CPO per year l per 1. Kang (2006).000 t CPO per year Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) 4.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Table 10 continued Value Surplus steam (output) Allocation factor after byproducts Transport Average distance plantation/oil mill GHG emissions after Oil Mill GHG emissions of Oil Mill GHG emissions of Oil Mill Reﬁnery Output Produced RefPO Input Fuller’s earth Energy consumption Natural gas Fuel oil Electricity (external) Electricity mix 0 8.
99 41.99 183. latest values.37 48.37 264.462 Table 10 continued Value Vehicle used transporting RefPO Used fuel for vehicle GHG emissions after Transport GHG emissions of Transport GHG emissions of Transport Total GHG emissions RefPO GHG emission savings RefPO compared with fossil comparator (electricity production) Esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions after Esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of Esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of Esteriﬁcation Total CO2 emissions FAME Total CO2 emissions FAME 1.800.92 g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME Fossil comparator GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator I (fuel diesel) GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator II (fuel diesel) 41. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007). 2006) Table 11 Scenario 4—Entire PK.6 % 44.95 1. Vietze Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Weindorf (2008) Weindorf (2008) 83. 2006) standard Value Plantation Output Yield FFB per ha Input N-fertiliser P2O5-fertiliser 95.0 % Ship/tanker 50kt (Fuel oil) HFO 1.15 4. esteriﬁcation WTT (CONCAWE et al.3 g CO2 eq/MJ (Silva et al.800.900 kg FFB per ha per year FAOSTAT (2006) Unit Source 123 .527.8 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) 87.10 1.0 % g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 91 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) Unit Source G.52 28. 2006.56 kg N per ha per year kg P2O5 per ha per year Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007). CONCAWE et al.30 55.12 7. Pehnelt. Henson (2004) 20. C.527.
5 0 0 53.000 t FFB per year Malaysian average in 2005 given in MPOB (2006) Malaysian average in 2005 given in MPOB (2006) 169. (2005). Department of Environment (1999) Schmidt (2007). (2005).40 360. Chavalparit et al.088.000 t FFB per year – Note: Diesel use for transport already covered in the cultivation stage 123 .4 t CPO per 1.73 Unit kg K2O per ha per year kg CaO per ha per year kg active ingredient per ha per year l per ha per year g CO2eq per kg FFB g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO Source 463 Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).900 Surplus steam (output) Allocation factor after byproducts Transport Average distance plantation/oil mill 0 0. Singh and Thorairaj (2006).000 t FFB per year g CO2 eq per kg CPO 201.000 t FFB per year t PKM per 1. (2004). (1981) Subranamiam et al.864 KWh per 1. Henson (2004). but not the higher economic value of PKO produced via cold pressing Calculations based on Yacob et al. Henson (2004) Singh (2006) Singh (2006) Note: Entire palm kernels not used for CPO but higher valued products.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Table 11 continued Value K2O-fertiliser CaO-fertiliser Pesticides Diesel (for all activities and transport) GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation Oil mill Main output Produced CPO Palm kernel oil (byproduct) Palm kernel meal (byproduct) Entire palm kernels (byproduct) Input/POME n-Hexane CH4 emissions from POME Energy consumption Fuel oil Natural gas 370 0 l per 1. Husain et al. Ma et al. Andersen et al.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.04 9.6 80.44 0 2.73 53. (2006) Subranamiam (2006a) Electricity (external) 0 Surplus electricity (output) 8.000 t FFB per year Subranamiam et al. Henson (2004). (2006). Energy content of EPK considered.7 t per 1.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1. (2003).000 t FFB per year t PKO per 1. (2005) 0 1.000 t FFB per year t EPK per 1. Department of Environment (1999) Subranamiam et al.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).
Kang (2006).464 Table 11 continued Value GHG emissions after Oil Mill GHG emissions of Oil Mill GHG emissions of Oil Mill Reﬁnery Output Produced RefPO Input Fuller’s earth Energy consumption Natural gas Fuel oil Electricity (external) Electricity mix GHG emission after reﬁnery GHG emissions of reﬁnery GHG emissions of reﬁnery Transport (to Europe) Transport (overland) Average distance oil mill/reﬁnery/port Vehicle used transporting RefPO Used fuel for vehicle Transport (ship) Average distance AsiaEurope Vehicle used transporting RefPO Used fuel for vehicle GHG emissions after transport GHG emissions of transport GHG emissions of transport 14.3 t per 1.344.975 Ship/tanker 50 kt (fuel oil) HFO 1. version 31-72008 Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) PortWorld Distances (2011) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) 123 . Vietze Schmidt (2007).95 g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO km 200 Truck for liquids (Diesel) Diesel km 0 8.000 t CPO per year 4.22 25.15 4.612 33.000 t CPO per year l per 1.000 t CPO per year 1. Pehnelt. UPRD (2004) UPRD (2004) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) JEC E3-database.93 g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO kWh per 1.000 t CPO per year kWh per 1.58 0.493 Malaysia (high value) 1.99 183.000 t CPO per year 957 T RefPO per 1. Singh (2006). C.85 950.253.68 Unit g CO2 eq per kg CPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO Source G.85 34.527.
919.900 kg FFB per ha per year FAOSTAT (2006) Unit Source 123 .919.99 41.79 10.0 % Unit g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 91 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) Source 465 Calculations based on WTT Appendix (v3) Calculations based on WTT Appendix (v3) Table 12 Scenario 5—Entire PK. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007). latest values.04 52.73 53.527.8 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) 87. transport JEC.3 g CO2 eq/MJ (Silva et al.3 % 83. Henson (2004) Singh (2006) Singh (2006) 20.8 % 40.44 0 2.30 55.15 g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME Fossil comparator GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator I (fuel diesel) GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator II (fuel diesel) 37. 2006) 1. CONCAWE et al.29 1.52 28.56 169.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Table 11 continued Value Total GHG emissions RefPO GHG emission savings RefPO compared with fossil comparator (electricity production) Esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions after esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of esteriﬁcation Total CO2 emissions FAME Total CO2 emissions FAME 1. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007). 2006. esteriﬁcation latest values Value Plantation Output Yield FFB per ha Input N-fertiliser P2O5-fertiliser K2O-fertiliser CaO-fertiliser Pesticides Diesel (for all activities and transport) 95. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).6 kg N per ha per year kg P2O5 per ha per year kg K2O per ha per year kg CaO per ha per year kg active ingredient per ha per year l per ha per year Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).04 382.
4 t CPO per 1.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1. but not the higher economic value of PKO produced via cold pressing Malaysian average in 2005 given in MPOB (2006) Malaysian average in 2005 given in MPOB (2006) Calculations based on Yacob et al.7 t per 1.088. (2003). (2006) Subranamiam (2006a) Electricity (external) 0 Surplus electricity (output) 8.5 0 0 53.000 t FFB per year t PKM per 1. (2005) Subranamiam et al. (2005).04 9. Department of Environment (1999) Subranamiam et al. Ma et al. Andersen et al. (2005).25 123 .000 t FFB per year g CO2 eq per kg CPO 201. Henson (2004). Vietze Note: Entire palm kernels not used for CPO but higher valued products.40 360.000 t FFB per year – Note: Diesel use for transport already covered in the cultivation stage g CO2 eq per kg CPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 1253. C. (2004).900 Surplus steam (output) Allocation factor after byproducts Transport Average distance plantation/oil mill GHG emissions after oil mill GHG emissions of oil mill GHG emissions of oil mill 0 0.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1. Chavalparit et al.000 t FFB per year t EPK per 1. Henson (2004).25 36.85 1341. Energy content of EPK considered. (2006).864 kWh per 1.000 t FFB per year t PKO per 1.000 t FFB per year 0 1.000 t FFB per year 80. (1981) Subranamiam et al. Singh and Thorairaj (2006). Department of Environment (1999) Schmidt (2007). Pehnelt.73 Unit g CO2 eq per kg FFB g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO Source G. Husain et al.466 Table 12 continued Value GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation Oil mill Main output Produced CPO Palm kernel oil (byproduct) Palm kernel meal (byproduct) Entire palm kernels (byproduct) Input/POME n-Hexane CH4 emissions from POME Energy consumption Fuel oil Natural gas 370 0 l per 1.
751.10 1.493 Malaysia (high value) 1.000 t CPO per year kWh per 1.000 t CPO per year Unit Source 467 Schmidt (2007).751.61 g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME Weindorf (2008) Weindorf (2008) 135 1. UPRD (2004) JEC E3-database.479.000 t CPO per year UPRD (2004) 957 T RefPO per 1.85 40.00 3.344. version 31-72008 JEC E3-database.58 0.12 7. version 31-72008 123 .85 34.479. Singh (2006).Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Table 12 continued Value Reﬁnery Output Produced RefPO Input Fuller’s earth Energy consumption Natural gas Fuel oil Electricity (external) Electricity mix GHG emission after reﬁnery GHG emissions of reﬁnery GHG emissions of reﬁnery Transport (to Europe) Transport (overland) RED-default value transport GHG emissions after transport GHG emissions of transport GHG emissions of transport Total GHG emissions RefPO GHG emission savings RefPO compared with fossil comparator (electricity production) Esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions after Esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of Esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of Esteriﬁcation Total CO2 emissions FAME Total CO2 emissions FAME 1.000 t CPO per year Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) 4.00 56.97 47. Kang (2006).0 % g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 91 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) 0 8.85 135.93 g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO kWh per 1.000 t CPO per year l per 1.97 264.612 33.65 1.3 t per 1.
000 t FFB per year g CO2 eq per kg CPO Calculations based on Yacob et al. Ma et al.000 t FFB per year t EPK per 1. CONCAWE et al. 2006) Table 13 Scenario 6—Entire PK.6 80.000 t FFB per year Malaysian average in 2005 given in MPOB (2006) Malaysian average in 2005 given in MPOB (2006) 95. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).5 0 0 53.40 360. transport RED.900 kg FFB per ha per year FAOSTAT (2006) Unit Source 123 .3 g CO2 eq/MJ (Silva et al. (2004).000 t FFB per year t PKO per 1. Henson (2004) Singh (2006) Singh (2006) Note: Entire palm kernels not used for CPO but higher valued products.4 t CPO per 1. latest values.8 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) 87.468 Table 12 continued Fossil comparator GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator I (fuel diesel) GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator II (fuel diesel) 43. Pehnelt. (2006).73 53.04 9. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).52 28. Energy content of EPK considered. 2006) standard Value Plantation Output Yield FFB per ha Input N-fertiliser P2O5-fertiliser K2O-fertiliser CaO-fertiliser Pesticides Diesel (for all activities and transport) GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation Oil mill Main output Produced CPO Palm kernel oil (byproduct) Palm kernel meal (byproduct) Entire palm kernels (byproduct) Input/POME n-Hexane CH4 emissions from POME 0 1. but not the higher economic value of PKO produced via cold pressing 20.56 169.73 kg N per ha per year kg P2O5 per ha per year kg K2O per ha per year kg CaO per ha per year kg active ingredient per ha per year l per ha per year g CO2 eq per kg FFB g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).2 % 45. esteriﬁcation WTT (CONCAWE et al. Andersen et al. 2006. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).000 t FFB per year t PKM per 1.7 t per 1. Vietze 83.5 % G.088. (1981) 201.44 0 2. C.
000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.341. version 31-72008 4.000 t CPO per year l per 1.93 GHG emission after Reﬁnery GHG emissions of Reﬁnery GHG emissions of Reﬁnery g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 123 . Department of Environment (1999) Subranamiam et al. UPRD (2004) UPRD (2004) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) JEC E3-database.25 957 t RefPO per 1.25 36.58 0. Chavalparit et al.000 t CPO per year kWh per 1. (2006) Subranamiam (2006a) Electricity (external) 0 Surplus electricity (output) Surplus steam (output) Allocation factor after byproducts Transport Average distance plantation/oil mill GHG emissions after oil mill GHG emissions of oil mill GHG emissions of oil mill Reﬁnery Output Produced RefPO Input Fuller’s earth Energy consumption Natural gas Fuel oil Electricity (external) Electricity mix 8. (2005) Unit Source 469 Subranamiam et al. Henson (2004). Singh and Thorairaj (2006).000 t CPO per year kWh per 1.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.000 t CPO per year Schmidt (2007). Department of Environment (1999) Schmidt (2007).493 Malaysia (high value) 1.000 t FFB per year Subranamiam et al.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Table 13 continued Value Energy consumption Fuel oil Natural gas 370 0 l per 1.864 – Note: Diesel use for transport already covered in the cultivation stage g CO2 eq per kg CPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 1.3 0 8. Henson (2004). Husain et al.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1. Singh (2006).85 34.253.000 t CPO per year t per 1. Kang (2006). (2005). (2003).344. (2005).85 1.612 33.900 0 0.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.
65 1.83 g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME Fossil comparator GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator I (fuel diesel) GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator II (fuel diesel) 39.85 40.63 382. CONCAWE et al.00 3.3 % 41.870.0 % g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 91 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) Unit Source G.63 50.479.3 g CO2 eq/MJ (Silva et al. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).479. Henson (2004) 20.00 56. Vietze RED (2009/28/EC) Weindorf (2008) Weindorf (2008) 83.8 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) 87.900 kg FFB per ha per year FAOSTAT (2006) Unit Source 123 . Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).79 10. 2006) Table 14 Scenario 7—PKO latest values Value Plantation Output Yield FFB per ha Input N-fertiliser P2O5-fertiliser K2O-fertiliser 95. 2006.870.470 Table 13 continued Value Transport (to Europe) Transport (total) RED-default value transport GHG emissions after transport GHG emissions of transport GHG emissions of transport Total GHG emissions RefPO GHG emission savings RefPO compared with fossil comparator (electricity production) Esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions after esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of esteriﬁcation Total CO2 emissions FAME Total CO2 emissions FAME 1. C. Pehnelt.8 % 135 1.29 1.52 28.44 kg N per ha per year kg P2O5 per ha per year kg K2O per ha per year Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).56 169.85 135.
(2004). (2006) Subranamiam (2006a) Electricity (external) Surplus electricity (output) Surplus steam (output) Allocation factor after by-products Transport Average distance plantation/oil mill GHG emissions after oil mill GHG emissions of oil mill 6.83 0 t CPO per 1.73 53. Henson (2004) Singh (2006) Singh (2006) Note: Only caloriﬁc value of PKO considered and not the higher economic value of PKO produced via cold pressing (no economic allocation) Malaysian average in 2005 given in MPOB (2006) Malaysian average values 2004 according to Oil World (2005) Malaysian average values 2004 according to Oil World (2005) Calculations based on Yacob et al.7 t per 1.6 80. (2006).7 8.058. (1981) Subranamiam et al. (2005). Henson (2004).000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.40 390.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.000 t FFB per year t PKM per 1. Husain et al. Singh and Thorairaj (2006).000 t FFB per year 0 2. Subranamiam (2006b) Schmidt (2007).088.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1000 t FFB per year Subranamiam et al.55 123 .000 t FFB per year g CO2 eq per kg CPO 201.56 Unit kg CaO per ha per year kg active ingredient per ha per year l per ha per year g CO2 eq per kg FFB g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO Source 471 Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007). (2003). Ma et al. Department of Environment (1999) Only PCO production.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Table 14 continued Value CaO-fertiliser Pesticides Diesel (for all activities and transport) GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation Oil mill Main output Produced CPO Palm kernel oil (byproduct) Palm kernel meal (byproduct) Entire palm kernels (byproduct) Input/POME n-Hexane CH4 emissions from POME Energy consumption Fuel oil Natural gas 370 0 l per 1.900 0 0.86 1.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1. (2005) 0 1.000 t FFB per year t EPK per 1. Chavalparit et al. Andersen et al.937 – Note: Diesel use for transport already covered in the cultivation stage g CO2 eq per kg CPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO 1.5 23.000 t FFB per year t PKO per 1.72 10.97 27.404.386.
00 45.612 33. Vietze Schmidt (2007).93 g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO kWh per 1.667.000 t CPO per year kWh per 1.000 t CPO per year l per 1.472 Table 14 continued Value GHG emissions of oil mill Reﬁnery Output Produced RefPO Input Fuller’s earth Energy consumption Natural gas Fuel oil Electricity (external) Electricity mix 0 8. C. UPRD (2004) UPRD (2004) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) JEC E3-database.000 t CPO per year 957 t RefPO per 1.15 4.493 Malaysia (high value) 1.975 Ship/tanker 50kt (fuel oil) HFO 1.05 km Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) km PortWorld distances (2011) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 123 . Kang (2006).58 0.000 t CPO per year 4.95 1.000 t CPO per year 28.61 Unit g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO Source G.00 183.483. version 31-72008 GHG emission after reﬁnery GHG emissions of reﬁnery GHG emissions of reﬁnery Transport (to Europe) Transport (overland) Average distance oil mill/reﬁnery/port Vehicle used transporting RefPO Used fuel for vehicle Transport (ship) Average distance AsiaEurope Vehicle used transporting RefPO Used fuel for vehicle GHG emissions after transport GHG emissions of transport GHG emissions of transport Total GHG emissions RefPO 200 Truck for liquids (Diesel) Diesel 14.85 34.3 t per 1. Pehnelt.667. Singh (2006).
1 % 39. 2006) Weindorf (2008) Weindorf (2008) 50. 2006.6 80. methane capture Value Plantation Output Yield FFB per ha Input N-fertiliser P2O5-fertiliser K2O-fertiliser CaO-fertiliser Pesticides Diesel (for all activities and transport) GHG emissions of and after plantation 95.73 53. but not the higher economic value of PKO produced via cold pressing 20. CONCAWE et al.6 % 83. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007). Henson (2004) Singh (2006) Singh (2006) Note: Entire palm kernels not used for CPO but higher valued products.900 kg FFB per ha per year FAOSTAT (2006) Unit Source 123 .8 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) 87.3 g CO2 eq/MJ (Silva et al.12 7. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).40 kg N per ha per year kg P2O5 per ha per year kg K2O per ha per year kg CaO per ha per year kg active ingredient per ha per year l per ha per year g CO2 eq per kg FFB Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).72 g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME Fossil comparator GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator I (fuel diesel) GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator II (fuel diesel) 37.13 52.10 1. Henson (2004) Average of Yusoff and Hansen (2007).940.0 % Unit 91 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) Source 473 Table 15 Scenario 8—Entire PK latest values.44 0 2.940. transport RED.52 28. Energy content of EPK considered.13 264.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Table 14 continued Value GHG emission savings RefPO compared with fossil comparator (electricity production) Esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions after esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of esteriﬁcation Total CO2 emissions FAME Total CO2 emissions FAME 1.56 169.
89 -0. Henson (2004).000 t FFB per year kWh per 1. Henson (2004).0 t per 1.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.900 Surplus steam (output) Allocation factor after byproducts Transport Average distance plantation/oil mill GHG emissions after Oil Mill GHG emissions of Oil Mill GHG emissions of Oil Mill Reﬁnery Output Produced RefPO Input Fuller’s earth 0 0.000 t FFB per year – Note: Diesel use for transport already covered in the cultivation stage g CO2 eq per kg CPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 313. (2006) Subranamiam (2006a) Electricity (external) 0 Surplus electricity (output) 8. Singh and Thorairaj (2006).73 Unit g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO Source G. (2005).89 957 t RefPO per 1.474 Table 15 continued Value GHG emissions of and after plantation GHG emissions of and after plantation Oil mill Main output Produced CPO Palm kernel oil (byproduct) Palm kernel meal (byproduct) Entire palm kernels (byproduct) Input/POME n-Hexane CH4 emissions from POME Energy consumption Fuel oil Natural gas 370 0 l per 1. Vietze Malaysian average in 2005 given in MPOB (2006) Malaysian average in 2005 given in MPOB (2006) Full methane capture Subranamiam et al. Pehnelt.000 t FFB per year t PKM per 1. Kang (2006).000 t FFB per year t PKO per 1.000 t FFB per year g CO2 eq per kg CPO 201. Singh (2006). UPRD (2004) UPRD (2004) 4.000 t FFB per year 0 0. Department of Environment (1999) Schmidt (2007).07 -32.000 t FFB per year 360.000 t FFB per year t EPK per 1.5 0 0 534 t CPO per 1. Chavalparit et al. Husain et al.000 t CPO per year Schmidt (2007). (2003).864 kWh per 1. (2005) Subranamiam et al.04 9.000 t FFB per year kWh per 1.3 123 . Department of Environment (1999) Subranamiam et al. (2005). C.000 t CPO per year t per 1.
000 t CPO per year kWh per 1.12 7.10 763.93 g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO kWh per 1.64 g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME g CO2 eq per kg FAME g CO2 eq per MJ FAME Fossil comparator GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator I (fuel diesel) GHG emission savings compared with fossil comparator II (fuel diesel) 75.000 t CPO per year l per 1.74 135.00 3. 2006.43 85.000 t CPO per year Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Schmidt (2007) Unit Source 475 JEC E3-database. 2006) Weindorf (2008) Weindorf (2008) 135 496.493 Malaysia (high value) 361.54 264.54 20.4 % 76.74 13.0 % g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO g CO2 eq per kg RefPO g CO2 eq per MJ RefPO 91g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) 0 8.3 g CO2 eq/MJ (Silva et al.65 496. version 31-72008 JEC E3-database. CONCAWE et al.8 g CO2 eq/MJ (RED 2009/28/EC) 87.58 0.74 34.612 33. version 31-72008 123 .Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel Table 15 continued Value Energy consumption Natural gas Fuel oil Electricity (external) Electricity mix GHG emission after Reﬁnery GHG emissions of Reﬁnery GHG emissions of Reﬁnery Transport (to Europe) Transport (total) RED-default value transport GHG emissions after transport GHG emissions of transport GHG emissions of transport Total GHG emissions RefPO GHG emission savings RefPO compared with fossil comparator (electricity production) Esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions after esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of esteriﬁcation CO2 emissions of esteriﬁcation Total CO2 emissions FAME Total CO2 emissions FAME 763.4 % 83.
23.. O. Biology and Fertility of Soils. M. Verordnung u ¨ber anforderungen an eine nachhaltige Herstellung von Biokraftstoffen (Biokraftstoff-Nachhaltigkeitsverordnung—BiokraftNachV). A. S. K. EUCAR. Azman. European Commission. S.. Teluk Intan. thesis. J. European Union (EU). (2002). (2006). S. Biomass and Bioenergy. Department of Environment. http://www. 123 . J.org/PDF/Main%20page/Ten%20 steps%20towards%20increased%20sustainability. Fargione. Campbell.. E. Pehnelt. Rome. (2003). (2006). FAO. Bek-Nielsen. K. C.. United Plantations Berhan. Aalborg University. (1999). Chetpattananondh. Ibsen. S. S.. Accessed December 2006. Are biofuels sustainable? The EU perspective. Well-to-tank report version 2b. Casson. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). R. Hill. C. Research Department. Numata. M. Tongurai. I. Bonn: BLE. Cockerill.rspo. The optimal age of oil palm replanting. C.. Accessed January 2007. and from deciduous and evergreen forests in Chiba. 65. 1235–1238.. G. (2006). Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. FAO. (2003). & Hawthorne. Microbial biomass nitrogen pool in soils from a warm temperate grassland. X. Corley. Field. & Martin. 2008. Kow (1999). C.. Jespersgaard.. V. C. Rome: FAO. (2004). Bang. 124–128. V.. & Okano. & Bunyakan. Harmonised calculations of biofuel greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. Department of Development and Planning. O.. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Madens globale fodaftryk (English: Global footprint of food). Environment. 8. Databog. In G.. Department of Development and Planning. & Lobell. Bockisch. physics. Ten steps towards sustainability of palm oil production. Malaysia. fysik. B. Ph. A. Industrial processes & the environment (Handbook No. http://www. Rulkens. Department of Environment. 11–18. United Plantations Berhad. & D. M. FAOSTAT. Polasky. 563–568. & Sharma. 271–287. The Netherlands et al. Accessed December 2006. central Japan. Ofﬁcial Journal of the European Union. B. 3). 31(8). (2008). Diss. M.476 G.. P. Kuala Lumpur. J. BioGrace. P. Ph. H. B. State of the world’s forests 2005. part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil.htm. H. Aalborg University. (2005).. BioGrace. Oil palm. Malaysia.org/docrep/007/y5797e/y5797e00. E. Singh. Arulandoo. Biotechnology for Biofuels. Teluk Intan. Zurich: WWF Switzerland.. ¨ ¨ Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung (BLE). R. Oil palm and the environment – A Malaysian perspective. L. P.. D.). (2008).pdf. 19.. Frese. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). D. & Noor. C. S.. Utrecht. W. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Leng. Personal communication with researcher xavier arulandoo. H. 16–61. http://apps. CONCAWE. G. Chavalparit. 2(1).. J. & Andersen..fao. P. (2006). chemistry). Oil Palm Industry Economic Journal. thesis. K. In J. (2006). M. Life assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Crude Palm Oil Industry. D. (2009). (1981). & Østergaard.. 1–9. P. & Khaodhair. M.. R. Development and Sustainability. Life assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Personal communication with Carl Bek-Nielsen. Brussels. C. Options for environmental sustainability of the crude palm oil industry in Thailand through enhancement of industrial ecosystems. Illinois: AOCS Press. T. Fertilizer use by crop in Malaysia. Malaysian Oil Palm Growers Council. Science. Chongkhong. FAOSTAT agriculture data. kemi (English: Data book.fao. Copenhagen: F&K forlaget. S. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Biomass energy: the scale of the potential resource. soybeans & critical habitatloss. L. Copenhagen: WWF Denmark. Vietze References Andersen. (2010). H. S. S. BioGrace_GHG_calculations_-_version_3_-_Public. In J. Corley. Ohsawa. Malaysia. (2008). (1995). & Tinker. (1998). Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context. J. (2002). 319. Mol. Diss. The oil palm (4th ed. Schmidt (2007).D. Biodiesel production by esteriﬁcation of palm fatty acid distillate. J. Executive Director... Fats and oils—Handbook.D. & JRC. (2009). Tilman. Billore. (2006). (2007). Jendarata Estate. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. (2006).xls. Announcement within the round table on sustainable palm oil initiative. L140. Huan. Fee.org. H. Integrated pest and disease management and associated impact of pesticides. Schmidt (2007).
PPI. M. Wakker. (2003). ASTS Fellow. Sustainable biomass. E. http://www.. 15–32. Jena Economic Research Paper. & Abdullah. Oil palm and the environment—A Malaysian perspective. 117–124. A. Z. 45–52. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).html. Overview of automation in a palm oil mill-the sterilisation process. Leng.andrew. Huan. I. & Otto. Distance calculation. Computing and Control Engineering Journal. Møller. Gheewala. Thøgersen. (2006). Rapport nr 91. GM. Zainal. Accessed July 2002. Glastra. WWF Switzerland. S.fertilizer. N.edu/user/jitkangl/Index. Kuala Lumpur. PortWorld Distances. Fodermiddeltabel—Sammen-sætning og foderværdi af fodermidler til kvæg (English: Feeding component table—Composition and feeding value of feeding components for cattle). Germany.D.. Palm oil forests and sustainability—Discussion paper for the round table on sustainable palm oil. Economics and Industry Development Division. Menichetti. & Yaacob. L. S. T.. European policies towards palm oil—sorting out some facts.org/ifa/statistics/crops/fubc5ed. K. future bioenergy and sustainable land use. H. Aarhus. Oxford.com/map. J. Z.oilworld. DC: World Bank Environment Department.. BP. Review of the Malaysian oil palm industry 2005. (2002). E. 2009(086). (2005). TotalFinaElf. H.. United Kingdom. Personal communication with Anders Kromand Hansen. Environmental evaluation of biodiesel production from palm oil in a life cycle perspective. A. In J. (2011). Agroforestry Systems.. Aalborg University. AarhusKarlshamn Denmark. Schmidt (2007). L. (1992).ec. thesis.. Soegaard. Hasan. Life assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. World in transition. P. IFA. G. Kow (1999).xls. (2009). A. (1997).. MPOB. Economics and Industry Development Division.. & Vietze. Malaysia. Ma. H. Hansen. The Imperata grasslands of tropical Asia: area. Fertilizer use by crop.cmu. Denmark: Landsudvalget for Kvæg. K. & D. Energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels from a lifecycle perspective. Soekardi. (2002). Review of the Malaysian Oil Palm Industry 2004. K. (2000). L. engineer. ExxonMobil. Malaysian Oil Palm Growers Council. Diss. M. Analysis of biomass-residue-based cogeneration system in palm oil mills. summary for policy-makers.. G... M. JEC... et al. Kang. Kandiah. December 2004.. S. Pehnelt. 3–29. Choo.htm. Gummersbach. Lim. 81–109. Y. M. R. L. MPOB Technology No.. Not published. N. Leng. H.portworld. Land use change in Indonesia. Singh. & D. Oil palm and the environment—A Malaysian perspective. Accessed December 2006. and topology. S. Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use. T. Updated version of chapter 17. Database. 24. distribution. Production of organic fertilisers and soil conditioners.. (2004). Gunasena.eu/jec-research-collaboration/downloads-jec. Kuala Lumpur. IPI.. Kow (1999). S. In G. Husain.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel 477 Garrity.jrc. S. C. D. 27. 8. Singh. A. http://ies. Webpage. pp. Berlin: WBGU. & Lim. P. Kelana Jaya. In Proceedings of the Scientiﬁc Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) (2009). (2004). LBST. Z. http://www. C. (2006).. Heidelberg. What Role Do Europe and Germany Play?. R. Renewable energy from palm oil industry... Pusat Pengajian Kejuruteraan Kimia di Universiti Sains Malaysia. Reﬁnery of palm oil. IFDC. van Noordwijk. E. Oil World.europa. Hvelplund. Malaysian Palm Oil Board.und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH (IFEU). Toh. IPCC. part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil.pdf . de la Cruz. R. www. ProForest. R. (2009). Pleanjai. Good practice guidance for land use. land-use change and forestry. M. German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). Foulum. Washington. Weisberg.. K. palm oil GHG calculator IFEU 09-10 vs1. M. In G. Malaysian Palm Oil Board. Department of Development and Planning. et al. Ph. Pagiola.. (2002). ProForest. (2011). www. W. Accessed December 2005. Well-to-wheel analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of advanced fuel/vehicle systems—A European Study. Biomass and Bioenergy. Singh. Malaysian Oil Palm Growers Council.biz. & Garivait. (2007). Zurich. Kajang. MPOB. Ottobrunn. (2010). 36. 1–30. Accessed May 2011. Accessed May 2011. Germany. J. (2003). K.. (2003). M.. (2005). Shell. (2006). (2000). & Chua. Pathak. L-B Systemtechnik GmbH. T.. Henson. H. Oil world annual 2005. (2008). L. M. P. ¨ Institut fur Energie. Kelana Jaya. M. Oil palm plantations and deforestation in Indonesia. Kjeldsen.. 3(1). 123 . FAO. International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment. (1999). & Richert. Huan. Kuala Lumpur. S. S. M. Asian Journal of Energy and Environment. Modelling carbon sequestration and emissions related to oil palm cultivation and associated land use change in Malaysia. T.
part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Farias. J. Schmidt (2007). A tank-to-wheel analysis tool for energy and emissions studies in road vehicles. Production of ethyl ester from esteriﬁed crude palm oil by microwave with dry washing by bleaching earth. M. V. D.. (2001). M. G. thesis. T.. & Weidema.S. G. Malaysia. & Lehman.D.. S. H. Energy and Environment Unit. V. Subranamiam.478 G. Diss. Ma. part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil.. UPRD. Empty fruit bunches as mulch. H. & Thorairaj. Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB). H. (1999). Data provided by research director Gurmit Singh and process engineer Ir. Wakker. Life assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Teluk Intan. Diss. & Ma. Kow (1999) Oil palm and the environment—A Malaysian perspective. (2008). Ottobrunn. Suppalakpanya. (2008). C. Ph. K. Malaysian Oil Palm Growers Council. (1990). 99. Subranamiam.D. L. Schmidt (2007). H. Tilman. G. Lim. J. Ph. 318–341. E. S. 235–239. Life cycle inventory for palm kernel crushing. A. part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. (2000). Life assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. C. P. C. A. Germany: Ludwig-Bolkow-Systemtechnik GmbH. (2011). Teluk Intan. (2006).D. Hill. & Choo.D. C. 1598–1600. K. Unilever (not published). 87. Goncalves. B. The Malaysian oil palm industry: Progress towards zero waste and environment excellence. Singh. System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA. thesis. Department of Development and Planning. Weindorf. A. Aalborg University. United Plantations Berhad (UPB). (2006). thesis. Kuala Lumpur. (2004). C. I. International energy statistics. (1999). Malaysia: WWF Malaysia. Silva. N. & Mendes-Lopes. Greasy palms—The social and ecological impacts of large-scale oil palm plantation development in Southeast Asia. Ph. Biomass Science. Leng. (2006b). In J. J. Poster presentation at PIPOC 2005. Teluk Intan. Volume EB70. Department of Development and Planning. Schmidt (2007). Shift in the marginal supply of vegetable oil. H. M. Aalborg University. 13(3). Department of Development and Planning. N. Personal communication with director of research gurmit singh. London: Friends of the Earth United Kingdom. H. D. Department of Development and Planning. Ph. B. T. (2010). G. (2005). In J. In J. Lee.. Kajang. & Tongurai. thesis. Teoh. Ph. & Loong. C. Kuala Lumpur. Aalborg University. palm kernel oil and coconut oil. Schmidt (2007). 123 .. Teluk Intan. 441–447. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland. 11–33. Singh. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Jendarata Estate. Energy database of the oil palm.. Energy and Environment Unit. Unpublished data by research ofﬁcer Vijaya Subramaniam. Energy Information Administration.. (2007). Unilever. Department of Development and Planning. 350–364. Aalborg University. Singh. (2004). (2008). Research Department. Malaysia: United Plantations Berhad. Accessed May 2011. C. 2356–2359. Journal of Industrial Ecology. Ratanawilai. (2004). United Plantations Berhad. Life cycle inventory of the production of CPO. Life assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Vietze Schmidt. L. Applied Energy. (2006) Data on energy use in the oil mill.D. W.. J. Annual report 2005. Subranamiam. In J. 314. L. Palm oil engineering bulletin. Selangor. part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. J. Department of Development and Planning. Subranamiam.. Life assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. LCI datasheets for palm oil. Weidema. Singh. http://tonto. Diss. Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB). Schmidt. P. 13(4). Environmental impact assessment of oil palm cultivation and processing in united plantations berhad. Kow. Land use and the oil palm industry in Malaysia: Report of WWF Malaysia. G. part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. B. (2006). Malaysia: United Plantations Research Department. V. C. thesis.. L. Singh. In J. Schmidt (2007). H.cfm?tid=79&pid=79&aid=1. Malaysia. H. (2006a). United Plantations Research Department. Aalborg University. K. outline of methodology and illustrative case study of wheat in Denmark. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Diss...eia. In G.. D. Provided by Peter Shonﬁeld 2004. U. H. Life assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Y. thesis. Kajang. 25–29 September. (2006).gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3. M. V. Ph. N.D. Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. Diss. Schmidt. Pehnelt. Diss. biofuels production. Personal communication with Vijaya Subramaniam. 367. United Plantations Berhad. Life assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Bioresources Technology for Sustainable Agriculture. Kajang. K. G. Science of the Total Environment.. Chow. H. Vergleichende betrachtung der Herstellung von Biodiesel und im Co-Processing ¨ hydrierten Pﬂanzeno ¨len. Huan. Aalborg University.. NP Thorairaj.. 4(3). Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB).
Renewable energy from palm oil—innovation on effective utilization of waste. 1–10. Kow (1999) Oil palm and the environment—A Malaysian perspective. Huan. S. C. K. L. Y. K. D. Leng. & Weng.. Kuala Lumpur. (2006). Feasibility study of performing a life cycle assessment on crude palm oil production in Malaysia. A. S. 14. 123 . Journal of Palm Oil Research. (2006). Shirai. & Hansen. Yusoff. Yusof. S. M.. In G. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Yacob. Baseline study of methane emission from anaerobic ponds of palm oil mill efﬂuent treatment. 50–58. Journal of Cleaner Production. T. (2004). 87–93. B. C.. K. Yusoff. 16(1). Wakisaka. The oil palm and its sustainability. L. & Subash. 187–196. 366.Recalculating GHG emissions saving of palm oil biodiesel 479 Weng. S. Malaysian Oil Palm Growers Council.. M.. 12(1). Science of the Total Environment. Biomass production in the oil palm industry. Hassan. B.. (2007). S. Singh. (1999).
Documents Similar To art-3A10.1007-2Fs10668-012-9387-z
Anonymous gWzqmE
Karen M Bess