Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ieam 1362
Ieam 1362
Ieam 1362
134–141
134 ß 2012 SETAC
(Submitted 24 January 2012; Returned for Revision 10 April 2012; Accepted 21 August 2012)
Life Cycle & Sustainability
ABSTRACT
This work reviews and performs a meta-analysis of the recent life cycle assessment and flow analyses studies palm oil
biodiesel. The best available data and information are extracted, summarized, and discussed. Most studies found palm oil
biodiesel would produce positive energy balance with an energy ratio between 2.27 and 4.81, and with a net energy production
of 112 GJ ha1y1. With the exception of a few studies, most conclude that palm oil biodiesel is a net emitter of greenhouse
gases (GHG). The origin of oil palm plantation (planted area) is the foremost determinant of GHG emissions and C payback time
(CPBT). Converting peatland forest results in GHG emissions up to 60 tons CO2equivalent (eq) ha1y1 leading to 420 years of
CPBT. In contrast, converting degraded land or grassland for plantation can positively offset the system to become a net
sequester of 5 tons CO2eq ha1y1. Few studies have discussed cradle-to-grave environmental impacts such as acidification,
eutrophication, toxicity, and biodiversity, which open opportunity for further studies. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2013;9:134–
141. ß 2012 SETAC
subject of interest in developing countries, as a contrast to the is claimed that the plantation is located on land that was
previous finding (Larson 2006). cleared several decades ago (>30 y) and start from Step B.
Most of the studies conducted in Southeast Asia (12) were 4. Gate-to-gate (Gt-to-Gt): For all studies other than those
set in Malaysia. Even though Indonesia is the world’s largest described in points 1, 2, and 3 above.
palm oil producer, only a few studies (4) were set in this
country. In contrast, although palm oil production in Thai- Almost 60% of the studies (13 studies) were carried out
land represents only 2% of the joint product of Malaysia and using the gate-to-gate approach, and only 10% (3 studies)
Indonesia, 6 studies were set in this country. In the Americas, were carried out using the cradle-to-grave approach. The
there were 3 studies set in Brazil and Colombia. In Africa, remaining 30% of the studies were carried out using the
there was 1 study conducted in Cameroon. cradle-to-gate or the gate-to-grave approach.
With respect to the type of study, a majority of the studies Land use change (LUC) is excluded in most gate-to-gate
(17) limited the assessment to the energy and/or GHG studies, mainly due to the difficulty in quantifying the origin
balances without considering any further environmental of the existing palm oil plantation (Yusoff and Hansen 2007).
impact categories. This approach is usually supported by However, an attempt has been undertaken to account for the
motivations of energy efficiency and climate change mitiga- LUC impact from mixed agricultural land in Thailand
tion of the development of renewable fuels. Only 6 studies go (Siangjaeo et al. 2011). Different approaches were under-
beyond the energy and/or GHG balances. taken by respective authors in relation to incorporation of
LUC in the life cycle impact assessment.
Scopes of reviewed studies
The palm oil biodiesel production system assessed by the Key methodological choices
reviewed studies can be divided in 5 major steps (Figure 1): Functional units. We use 4 different approaches in defining
A) land preparation, B) oil palm plantation, C) palm oil mill, the functional unit. We classify these approaches into 4
E) conversion to biodiesel fuel, and E) use of biodiesel fuel groups: agricultural land area, output mass, output energy,
(BDF). Depending on which unit processes are considered in and output service (Table 1). In the area of ‘‘agricultural
the assessment, studies are classified into 4 categories: land’’ group, results of the assessment are normalized in the
unit of hectare per year of plantation. In the ‘‘output mass’’
1. Cradle-to-grave (Cr-to-Gr): For studies that include all the group, results of the assessment are normalized in the unit
steps from Step A to Step E, or from Step B to Step E in of kg or ton of BDF. Although there is 1 study (Siangjaeo
the case where it is claimed that the plantation is located et al. 2011) that uses related output volume (in liters of BDF),
on land that was cleared several decades ago (>30 y). The we included it in this group. In the ‘‘output energy’’ group,
term ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ refers to what is commonly used as results of the assessment are normalized in the unit of MJ of
‘‘well-to-wheel’’ in fuels (including biofuels) studies. It is BDF or CPO. In the ‘‘output service’’ group, results of the
arguable whether land preparation is the ‘‘cradle’’ of the assessment are normalized in 100 km of transportation by
life cycle or just an input to the plantation. In this study, light duty diesel vehicle.
we define it as cradle, considering the importance of its
impact to the whole life cycle of palm oil biodiesel (Wicke
et al. 2008). Reference systems. Table 2 shows which reference systems the
2. Cradle-to-gate (Cr-to-Gt): For studies that begin from study is compared. Twelve of the 23 reviewed studies do not
Step A but do not end in Step E. compare the assessed system to a reference system. Rapeseed
3. Gate-to-grave (Gt-to-Gr): For studies that end in Step E is used in 3 studies, Jatropha biodiesel in 2 studies, and fossil
but do not begin from Step A, except in the case where it fuel in 2 studies. Other substitutes, such as sugarcane ethanol
and soybean biodiesel, are also mentioned in some studies.
Studies that apply consequential LCA compare the assessed
systems to different consequential scenarios. In Schmidt
(2010), for instance, the scenarios include increasing agricul-
tural area and increasing agricultural yield. In Stichnothe and
Schuchardt (2010), the scenarios include dumping empty
fruit bunch (EFB) and composting EFB.
Considering that palm oil biodiesel pathway delivers some
co-products (e.g., palm kernel oil, glycerin), it is found that
accounting for the impact of substituted products in the
reference systems is still not considered in many of the
existing studies with the exception of Achten et al. (2010).
Furthermore, the alternative land use change impact of the
substitute biodiesel is not widely adopted as a reference
system except in Siangjaeo et al. (2011).
de Souza et al. 2010 Siangjaeo et al. 2011 Choo et al. 2011 Pleanjai et al. 2009
Germer and Suerborn 2008 Schmidt et al. 2010 Achten et al. 2010
Kamahara et al. 2010 Stichnothe and Schuchardt 2010 Puah et al. 2010
Impact category and characterization. Climate change or global of GJ ha1y1) is 112 with a standard deviation of 24. Data
warming potential associated with GHG emissions is the are shown in Table 3.
impact category addressed in a majority of the reviewed The variety of NER and NEP results depends on several
studies. Other impacts categories that are also frequently technical factors including yields, amount of fertilizer used,
addressed include potentials of toxicity, eutrophication, and mill efficiency. For instance, in the study of de Souza et
acidification, and biodiversity loss. Various methodologies al. (2010) less fertilizer and fuel inputs are used in the
have been used to categorize the environmental impacts as plantation stage when compared to that of Yee et al. (2009)
well as to quantify the physical flow into each characterized or Pleanjai and Gheewala (2009). Moreover, pesticide use
impact. EcoIndicator 99 was used in Zah et al. (2007), Yusoff is not included in the study of Yee et al. (2009). Apart
and Hansen (2007), and Puah et al. (2010). The Inter- from these technical factors, methodological issues in
governmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines is used in calculation, such as system boundaries and allocation proce-
Siangjaeo et al. (2011), Achten et al. (2010), Germer and dure, also play roles.
Sauerborn (2008), and Wicke et al. (2008) in quantification of Increasing of NER and NEP is still possible through
the GWP. Other guidelines such as CML 2001 method, the improvement in the processes. Kamahara et al. (2010) claim
Danish EDIP97 method, and Swiss UPB06 have been used by that NER can be improved up to 8.0 by combining several
Stichnothe and Schuchardt (2010), Schmidt (2010), and Zah process improvement options (e.g., using all the biomass
et al. (2007), respectively. residue, glycerin co-product, and biogas for energy produc-
tion, using glycerin, and increasing the FFB yield).
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Energy balance GHG emissions and C payback time
Generally, all studies agree that palm oil biodiesel would The reviewed studies use different methodologies in
produce positive energy balance, indicating it as a feasible calculating GHG emissions. We classify these approaches
feedstock for biodiesel. The results from the reviewed studies into 3 groups (Figure 2):
show a net energy ratio (NER) between 2.27 and 4.81.
Because the reviewed studies differ in their system boundaries 1. Those that emphasize exclusively C-loss caused by LUC as
and normalization is complicated, averaging the value for GHG emissions (Fargione et al. 2008; Germer and
NER is inappropriate. Sauerborn 2008).
Concerning the net energy production (NEP), which is the 2. Those that calculate the life cycle GHG emissions but
difference between energy output and energy inputs, the exclude C-debt from LUC. Authors in this group used
average value of the reviewed studies (normalized in the unit 2 approaches:
Fossil fuel Rapeseed biodiesel Jathropa biodiesel Palm biodiesel in different scenario Other
Achten et al. 2010 Papong et al. 2010 Lam et al. 2009 Schmidt 2010 Fargione et al. 2008
Pleanjai et al. 2009 Schmidt 2010 Papong et al. 2010 Stichnothe and Schuchardt 2010 Gibbs et al. 2008
(a) Subtracting CO2 assimilation in plantation from the Based on the data in Table 4, we distinguish these results
total life cycle GHG emissions (Lam et al. 2009; Yee into 2 groups:
et al. 2009). This way, GHG emissions are total GHG
emitted minus assimilated CO2 in palm plantation; 1. Studies that conclude that palm oil biodiesel is a net
and sequester of CO2 from the atmosphere. Included in
(b) Ignoring CO2 assimilation in plantation. This way, this group are results from Lam et al. (2009), Yee et al.
GHG emissions are the sum of GHG emitted. (de (2009), Siangjaeo et al. (2011) and some results from
Souza et al. 2010; Achten et al. 2010). Although Germer and Sauerborn (2008) and Wicke et al. (2008). In
Achten et al. (2010) also calculated GHG emission Germer and Sauerborn (2008), Wicke et al. (2008),
from LUC, the purpose was only for calculating C and Siangjaeo et al. (2011), this fact is attributed to
payback time (CPBT). the practice of cultivating oil palms in former degraded
3. Those that calculate the cradle-to-grave (LUC up to BDF land, former mixed agricultural land, or former grassland.
production) or cradle-to-gate (LUC up to BDF use) GHG In Lam et al. (2009) and Yee et al. (2009), this fact
emissions by distributing the C-loss over a certain time is attributed to subtracting the assimilation in palm
span (25–100 y) (Wicke et al. 2008; Reijnders and plantation from life cycle GHG emissions. However, Yee
Huijbregts 2008). et al. (2009) obtained a difference of 3 orders-of-
magnitude (8980 t CO2eq ha1y1) to that of Lam
Table 4 depicts the summary of GHG calculation of et al. (2009), which calls for a revisiting of the method-
selected reviewed studies. The methods of calculating the ology they used.
GHG emissions in the reviewed studies vary widely and thus 2. Studies that conclude that palm oil biodiesel is a net
result in completely different conclusions. emitter of CO2 to the atmosphere.
GHG
Nr Author Approach a
In original units Normalized in ha1y1 Remarks
1 Fargione et al. 2008 1 610 t CO2eq ha1 50 y1 12 t CO2eq From lowland forest
1 1
3000 t CO2eq ha 50 y 60 t CO2eq From peatland forest
2 Germer and Sauerborn 2008 1 135 t CO2eq ha1 25 y1 5 t CO2eq From grassland
1 1
650 t CO2eq ha 25 y 26 t CO2eq From nonpeat forest
1 1
1300 t CO2eq ha 25 y 52 t CO2eq From peatland forest
3 Lam et al. 2009 2.a 6.9 t CO2eq t1BDF 34 t CO2eq No LUC considered
1
4 Yee et al. 2009 2.a 1796 t CO2eq t BDF 9 kt CO2eq No LUC considered
6 de Souza et al. 2010 2.b 1437 kg CO2eq ha1 y1 1 t CO2eq No LUC considered
8 Siangjaeo et al. 2011 3 0.60 kg CO2eq l1BDF 3 t CO2eq From abandoned land
1
0.73 kg CO2eq l BDF 3 t CO2eq From other plantation
1
9 Reijnders and Huijbregts 2008 3 11.2 t CO2eq t BDF 56 t CO2eq Median value
10 Wicke et al. 2008 3 51 g CO2eq MJ1BDF 2 t CO2eq From degraded land
1
107 g CO2eq MJ BDF 4 t CO2eq From nonpeat forest
1
391 g CO2eq MJ BDF 14 t CO2eq From peatland forest
11 Hassan et al. 2011 3 400 g CO2eq MJ1BDF 16 t CO2eq From primary forest
1
320 g CO2eq MJ BDF 13 t CO2eq From 2nd.forest
All other results of the reviewed studies indicate palm oil fertilizer use and treatment option in mill effluent. For
biodiesel is a net GHG emitter to the atmosphere. In cases biodiesel from plantation originally from peatland forest, the
when palm oil plantations were originally from peatland CPBT can last between 169 to 900 years, whereas those that
forest, the GHG emissions range between 14 and 60 were originally from degraded land can only last between 0 to
t CO2eq ha1y1, whereas those in which plantations were 10 years. Table 5 gives the CPBT results of selected studies.
originally from natural or lowland forest can be in the range of From these studies, it can be concluded that the impacts of
4 to 26 t CO2eq ha1y1 (Fargione et al. 2008; Germer and palm oil biodiesel on GHG emissions and CPBT can be lower
Sauerborn 2008; Wicke et al. 2008; Hassan et al. 2011). This when oil palm is planted on degraded land, grassland, or other
indicates how LUC is the most decisive factor in determining low C soils (Choo et al. 2011; Hansen et al. 2012). Figure 3
life cycle GHG emissions of palm oil biodiesel. provides a graphical summary to show how GHG emission
In studies that exclude LUC in calculating the GHG would differ depending on the land origin. However, this
emission (Achten et al. 2010; de Souza et al. 2010; Choo improvement is subject to the availability of degraded land,
et al. 2011) it is found that GHG emissions are between 1 and grassland, or other low C soils that could be used for
2 t CO2eq ha1y1. In such system boundaries, the significant plantation purposes. Other improvement potential is avail-
factors that determine GHG emissions are the amount of able in the POME treatment process, for instance by using
fertilizer inputs in plantations, diesel fuel use in traction, and POME to produce biogas followed by co-composting the
treatment option of POME. residue with EFB (Kamahara et al. 2010).
Carbon payback time is the time that a biofuel system
needs to repay the initial C emission caused by LUC. By
knowing C-loss in LUC, life cycle GHG emissions of the Eutrophication and acidification impacts
assessed biofuel, and life cycle GHG emissions of a referred Eutrophication and acidification potentials are addressed
fossil fuel system, CPBT is calculable. Similar with GHG in 5 studies. Nordic Guidelines on LCA (Lindfors et al.
emissions, the CPBT value is also variable depending on the 1995) is used for characterization in Achten et al. (2010),
land origin and other emission factors in its life cycle, such as thus eutrophication and acidification impact potentials are
MA Rev of LCA and FA Studies of POB—Integr Environ Assess Manag 9, 2013 139
Table 5. CPBT of selected studies European normalization and weighting factors. Table 6
summarizes all eutrophication and acidification potentials
Nr Authorr CPBT (y) Remarks from the respective studies.
1 Achten et al. 2010 47–49
Because eutrophication and acidification impacts are
reported less uniformly, we did not attempt to normalize
2 de Souza et al. 2010 39 the results across these studies. Studies state that the majority
of the total eutrophication and acidification potential of the
3 Danielsen et al. 2008 75–93 From nonpeat forest
palm oil biodiesel is caused by agricultural and extraction
10 From degraded land phases. This is associated with NH3 emissions and N leaching.
Anther contributing factor is the combustion of biodiesel
4 Fargione et al. 2008 420 From peatland forest during its end use. Improvement is possible when POME is
86 From nonpeat forest used to generate biogas and further co-composted with EFB,
then returned to the plantation.
5 Gibbs et al. 2008 900 From peatland forest
Nr Author EP AP
1 Achten et al. 2010 31.9 < EP < 39.6 g O2eq/FU 1.35 < AP < 1.57 g SO2eq/FU
3 Schmidt 2008 80.6 < EP < 337 kg NO3eq/FU 13 < AP < 23.5 kg SO2eq/FU
production, and traction. However, some authors claim there investigated, are still needed. Comparing biodiversity impacts
is a reduction of 45% to 60% on nonrenewable energy use of land use change from mixed agricultural land or grassland
compared to fossil reference system (Achten et al. 2010; Zah to oil palm plantation need to be explored as these 2 options
et al. 2007). are likely preferable to rainforest for further oil palm
Potential impact to toxicity is discussed in 4 studies: plantation expansion.
Stichnothe and Schuchardt (2010), Puah et al. (2010), Yusof Further toxicological studies should be carried out to
and Hansen (2007), Zah et al. (2007) using respective assess the possible impact of the pesticides use in plantations.
characterization methods described previously. Overall, Studies in Indonesia, in particular, should address potential
studies found that there is no significant human health impact marine ecological toxicology, considering the nature of its
apart from respiratory inorganics resulting mainly from archipelagic landscape. It is also important to assess water
particles emitted by the boiler. Some of the studies neglect use and its impact to the groundwater resource around
the impact of pesticides, assuming that the doses are relatively the plantation and mills, as it is indicated that a considerable
small, so that the impacts generally do not spread out of the amount of water is used for irrigation and steam in boiler
plantation area. operations (Yáñez Angarita et al. 2009; de Souza et al.
Land transformation impact is discussed in Achten et al. 2010).
(2010) and Schmidt (2010). Land transformation impact From the relative energy gain standpoint, it is evident that
strongly depends on the land origin. Almost similar to the oil palm is a potential renewable feedstock for renewable fuel.
GHG and biodiversity impact, an improvement of functional It is also evident that some environmental consequences are
and structural ecosystem quality can only be expected in cases associated with its supply chain. Some process improvements
when the plantation is converted from degraded land or a mix have been identified both in increasing the energy gain and in
of traditional agriculture. reducing the environmental impacts. However, it must be
highlighted here that there exist some trade-offs in achieving
these objectives. As an example, expanding oil palm
Source of uncertainties plantation in degraded land or grassland and avoiding the
From the life cycle methodological point of view, differ- conversion of rainforest is the most effective improvement
ence in system boundary used (e.g., cradle-to-grave vs gate-to- potential in reducing GHG emissions. However, planting oil
gate) is the major source of variability and uncertainty in the palm on degraded land is costly and does not provide initial
studies. Furthermore, the use of different impact assessment capital such as timber extraction from rainforest. As another
methodologies (e.g., EcoIndicator vs EDIP97) is another example, the use of POME to generate biogas or to be further
important source of variability of results as demonstrated in co-composted with EFB and returned to the plantation is also
Schmidt (2010) in its sensitivity analysis. Another aspect is effective in GHG emissions reduction. However, this option
the allocation method of co-product that often plays a role in will eliminate the opportunity of co-combusting EFB in boiler
variation of results. Data quality is also a common issue that in turn will increase the energy input (i.e., fossil fuels)
because proxy data is used in some of the studies. With and reduce the NER as well as profitability. To address these
respect to estimation of GHG emission in the land use trade-offs, future studies need to focus on consequential
change, the assumption of the land origin and its C content are LCAs and optimization-based models to obtain an optimal
the important sources of variability leading to the uncertainty of solution.
the results (Wicke et al. 2008; Hassan et al. 2011). Recognizing the contribution of natural resources and the
Apart from the methodological variability, uncertainty lack of the comprehensive accounting of the role of ecosystem
comes from the effects of different agricultural and processing goods and services, it is important to conduct an in-depth
practices in the respective studies. Variability in crop yields analysis of the contribution of natural resources in the life
due to geographical location and management practice are the cycle of palm oil biodiesel, e.g., using the ecologically based
key issues in cultivation stage. For instance, in the study of de LCA approach (Zang et al. 2010). Finally, decision support
Souza et al. (2010), less fertilizer and fuel inputs are used in analysis studies (e.g., multicriteria decision analysis [MCDA])
the plantation stage when compared to that of Pleanjai and are very relevant to assess different competing options of
Gheewala (2009). Mill efficiency is also a key issue in the biodiesel feedstock, such as Jatropha, rapeseed, and algae. An
conversion stage. MCDA in general involves m alternatives (e.g., comparing
palm oil biodiesel with different biofuel systems or different
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE STUDY scenario within palm oil biodiesel processing) evaluated on n
Studies using life cycle based methodology to account for criteria (i.e., sustainability criteria). An operational frame-
environmental impacts of oil palm biodiesel have been work to execute the MCDA in sustainable energy decision
increasing over the last 5 years. However, the number of making has been presented by Wang et al. (2009).
studies is growing only in certain countries (i.e., Malaysia, Eventually, in view of the three dimensions of sustain-
Thailand). More studies in Indonesia are needed because the ability, efforts must be made to broaden existing LCA studies
LCA studies conducted are still disproportional to the scale of to account for more criteria that is relevant to the 3Ps
oil palm expansion in that country. South America and Africa (prosperity, people, and planet). To this end, it will be
are also in need of further exploration in such studies. interesting to apply the integrated system modeling frame-
Throughout these studies, some significant impacts such as work for the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment framework
energy gain, potentials of global warming, eutrophication, developed in Halog and Manik (2011). This is also in line with
acidification, toxicology, and biodiversity have been disclosed. the call from United Nations Environmental Program
Nevertheless, more intensive studies for improving data (UNEP) for life cycle sustainability assessment, which has
quality and reducing the uncertainty and sensitivity analysis been reported in Heijungs et al. (2010) and Guineé et al.
while exploring possible impacts, which have not yet been (2011).
MA Rev of LCA and FA Studies of POB—Integr Environ Assess Manag 9, 2013 141
Acknowledgment—This study was sponsored by the derived from palm oil: A case study from Indonesian practice. Biomass
Fulbright Program in cooperation with American Indonesian Bioenerg 30:1–7.
Exchange Foundation (AMINEF). Lam MK, Lee KT, Mohamed AR. 2009. Life cycle assessment for the production of
biodiesel: A case study in Malaysia for palm oil versus Jatropha oil. Biofuels
REFERENCES Bioprod Bioref 3:601–612.
Achten WMJ, Van den Bempt P, Almeida J, Mathis E, Muys B. 2010. Life cycle Larson ED. 2006. A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid biofuel systems for
assessment of a palm oil system with simultaneous production of biodiesel and the transportation sector. Energ Sustain Dev 10:109–126.
cooking oil in Cameroon. Environ Sci Technol 44:4809–4815. Lindfors LG, Christiansen K, Hoffman L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hansen OJ,
Basiron Y. 2007. Palm oil production through sustainable plantation. Eur J Lipid Sci Ronning A, Ekvall T, Finnveden G. 1995. Nordic guidelines on LCA.
Technol 109:289–295. Copenhagen: Nord.
Choo YM, Muhamad H, Hashim Z, Subramaniam V, Puah CW, Tan YA. 2011. Papong S, Chom-In T, Noksa-nga S, Malakul P. 2010. Life cycle energy efficiency and
Determination of GHG contributions by subsystems in the oil palm supply chain potentials of biodiesel production from palm oil in Thailand. Energ Policy
using the LCA approach. Int J LCA 16:669–681. 38:225–233.
Danielsen F, Beukema H, Burgess ND, Parish F, Brühl CA, Donald PF, Mudiyarso D, Pleanjai S, Gheewala SH. 2009. Full chain energy analysis of biodiesel production
Phalan B, Reijnders L, Struebig M., et al. 2008. Biofuel plantations on forested from palm oil in Thailand. Appl Energ 86:S209–S214.
lands: Double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate. Conserv Biol 23:348–358. Pleanjai S, Gheewala SH, Garivait S. 2009. Greenhouse gas emissions from the
de Souza SP, Pacca S, de Avila MT, Borges JLB. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions and production and use of palm methyl ester in Thailand. Int J Global Warm 1:418–
energy balance of palm oil biodiesel. Renew Energ 35:2552–2561. 430.
Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P. 2008. Land clearing and the Puah CW, May CY, Ngan MA. 2010. Life cycle assessment for the production and
biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238. use of palm biodiesel (Part 5). J Palm Oil Res 25:927–933.
Fitzherbert EB, Struebig MJ, Morel A, Danielsen F, Brühl CA, Donald PF, Phalan B. Reijnders L, Huijbregts MAJ. 2008. Palm oil and the emission of carbon-based
2008. How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends Ecol Evol 23:538– greenhouse gases. J Clean Prod 16:477–482.
545. Schmidt JH. 2008. Development of LCIA characterization factors for land use
Fukuda H, Kondo A, Noda H. 2001. Biodiesel fuel production by transesterification impact on biodiversity. J Clean Prod 16:1929–1942.
of oils. J Biosci Bioeng 92:405–416. Schmidt JH. 2010. Comparative life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil.
Germer J, Sauerborn J. 2008. Estimation of the impact of oil palm plantation Int J LCA 15:183–197.
establishment on greenhouse gas balance. Environ Dev Sustain 10:697–716. Siangjaeo S, Gheewala SH, Unnanon K, Chidthaisong A. 2011. Implications of land
Gibbs HK, Johnston M, Foley JA, Holloway T, Monfreda C, Ramankutty N, Zaks D. use change on the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from palm biodiesel
2008. Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: production in Thailand. Energ Sustain Dev 15:1–7.
The effects of changing yield and technology. Environ Res Lett 3:34001–34011. Stichnothe H, Schuchardt F. 2010. Comparison of different treatment
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R. 2001. The EcoIndicator 99—A damage oriented options for palm oil production waste on a life cycle basis. Int J LCA
method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. BB Amersfoort: PRe Consultants. 15:907–915.
Guineé JB. editor. 2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment: Operational guide to Sumathi S, Chai SP, Mohamed AR. 2008. Utilization of oil palm as a source of
the ISO standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. 81–82. renewable energy in Malaysia. Ren Sust Energy Rev 12:2404–2421.
Guineé JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buonamici R, Ekvall T, Wang J-J, Jing Y-Y, Zhang C-F, Zhao J-H. 2009. Review on multi-criteria decision
Rydberg T. 2011. Life cycle assessment: Past, present and future. Environ Sci analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sustain Energ Rev
Technol 45:90–96. 13:2263–2278.
Halog A, Manik Y. 2011. Advancing integrated system modeling framework for life Wicke B, Dornburg V, Junginger M, Faaij A. 2008. Different palm oil production
cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 3:469–499. systems for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas implications. Biomass
Hassan MNA, Jaramillo P, Griffin WM. 2011. Life cycle GHG emissions from Bioenerg 28:1322–1337.
Malaysian oil palm bioenergy development: The impact on transportation Yáñez Angarita, Silva EE, Lora EE, da Costa RE, Torres EA. 2009. The energy balance
sector’s energy security. Energ Policy 39:2615–2625. in the palm oil-derived methyl ester (PME) life cycle for the cases in Brazil and
Hansen SB, Olsen SI, Ujang Z. 2012. Greenhouse gas reductions through enhanced Colombia. Renew Energ 34:2905–2913.
use of residues in the life cycle of Malaysian palm oil derived biodiesel. Bioresour Yee KF, Tan KT, Abdullah AZ, Lee KT. 2009. Life cycle assessment of palm biodiesel:
Technol 104:358–366. Revealing facts and benefits for sustainability. Appl Energ 86:S189–S196.
Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guineé JB. 2010. Life cycle assessment and sustainability Yusoff S, Hansen SB. 2007. Feasibility study of performing an LCA on crude palm oil
analysis of products, materials and technologies: Toward scientific framework production in Malaysia. Int J LCA 12:50–56.
for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym Degrad Stabil 95:422–428. Zah R, Boni H, Gauch M, Hischier R, Lehmann M, Wager P. 2007. Life Cycle
[ISO] International Organization for Standardization. 2006. ISO 14040: Assessment of energy products: Environmental assesment of biofuels. Bern:
Environmental management—Life cycle assessment, principles and EMPA.
framework. Geneva: ISO. Zang Y, Baral A, Bakhsi BR. 2010. Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle
Kamahara H, Hasanudin U, Widiyanto A, Tachibana R, Atsuta Y, Goto N, Daimon H, assessment, Part II: Toward and ecologically-based LCA. Environ Sci Technol
Fujie K. 2010. Improvement potential for net energy balance of biodiesel 44:2624–2631.