Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2552e2561

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Greenhouse gas emissions and energy balance of palm oil biofuel

Simone Pereira de Souza a, Sergio Pacca a, *, Márcio Turra de Ávila b, José Luiz B. Borges b
a
Graduate Program on Environmental Engineering Science, School of Engineering of São Carlos, University of São Paulo, Rua Arlindo Bettio, 1000 Sao Paulo, Brazil
b
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa e Soja), Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The search for alternatives to fossil fuels is boosting interest in biodiesel production. Among the crops
Received 10 September 2009 used to produce biodiesel, palm trees stand out due to their high productivity and positive energy
Accepted 23 March 2010 balance. This work assesses life cycle emissions and the energy balance of biodiesel production from
Available online 7 May 2010
palm oil in Brazil. The results are compared through a meta-analysis to previous published studies: Wood
and Corley (1991) [Wood BJ, Corley RH. The energy balance of oil palm cultivation. In: PORIM intl. palm
Keywords:
oil conference e agriculture; 1991.], Malaysia; Yusoff and Hansen (2005) [Yusoff S, Hansen SB. Feasibility
Palm biodiesel
study of performing an life cycle assessment on crude palm oil production in Malaysia. International
Energy balance
GHG emission
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2007;12:50e8], Malaysia; Angarita et al. (2009) [Angarita EE, Lora EE,
Carbon stock Costa RE, Torres EA. The energy balance in the palm oil-derived methyl ester (PME) life cycle for the cases
Land use change in Brazil and Colombia. Renewable Energy 2009;34:2905e13], Colombia; Pleanjai and Gheewala (2009)
[Pleanjai S, Gheewala SH. Full chain energy analysis of biodiesel production from palm oil in Thailand.
Applied Energy 2009;86:S209e14], Thailand; and Yee et al. (2009) [Yee KF, Tan KT, Abdullah AZ, Lee KT.
Life cycle assessment of palm biodiesel: revealing facts and benefits for sustainability. Applied Energy
2009;86:S189e96], Malaysia. In our study, data for the agricultural phase, transport, and energy content
of the products and co-products were obtained from previous assessments done in Brazil. The energy
intensities and greenhouse gas emission factors were obtained from the Simapro 7.1.8. software and
other authors. These factors were applied to the inputs and outputs listed in the selected studies to
render them comparable. The energy balance for our study was 1:5.37. In comparison the range for the
other studies is between 1:3.40 and 1:7.78. Life cycle emissions determined in our assessment resulted in
1437 kg CO2e/ha, while our analysis based on the information provided by other authors resulted in
2406 kg CO2e/ha, on average. The Angarita et al. (2009) [Angarita EE, Lora EE, Costa RE, Torres EA. The
energy balance in the palm oil-derived methyl ester (PME) life cycle for the cases in Brazil and Colombia.
Renewable Energy 2009;34:2905e13] study does not report emissions. When compared to diesel on
a energy basis, avoided emissions due to the use of biodiesel account for 80 g CO2e/MJ. Thus, avoided life
cycle emissions associated with the use of biodiesel yield a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
We also assessed the carbon balance between a palm tree plantation, including displaced emissions from
diesel, and a natural ecosystem. Considering the carbon balance outcome plus life cycle emissions the
payback time for a tropical forest is 39 years. The result published by Gibbs et al. (2008) [Gibbs HK,
Johnston M, Foley JA, Holloway T, Monfreda C, Ramankutty N, et al., Carbon payback times for crop-based
biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology. Environmental Research
Letters 2008;3:10], which ignores life cycle emissions, determined a payback range for biodiesel
production between 30 and 120 years.
Crown Copyright Ó 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The energy balance, the reduction potential of greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions, and the biomass yield, which is a proxy for the
The use of biofuels has been supported by various nations conversion efficiency of solar radiation per hectare, are important
through plans and goals calling for greater shares of these fuels and factors that need to be considered in biofuels assessments. In
other renewable energy sources [7]. addition, the effect on carbon stocks, because of direct and indi-
rect land use change, has been discussed in recent articles
focusing on biofuels’ GHG emission reduction potential [8e11].
* Corresponding author. These studies have demonstrated that the type of vegetation in
E-mail address: spacca@usp.br (S. Pacca). place before the land is converted to a biofuel plantation exerts

0960-1481/$ e see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.03.028
 S.P. de Souza et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2552e2561 2553

a significant effect on the ecosystem’s carbon stock and overall 3.1. Meta-analysis
biofuel GHG budget.
Usually, the carbon stock in degraded soils is low (1e2 tC/ha) We adjusted part of the data presented by other authors as part
[11,12]. However, the carbon stock of a degraded soil could be of the meta-analysis. Thus, the use of co-products for power
enhanced by the decomposition of carbon sequestered by palm production, the production of organic fertilizers, and the allocation
trees. Thus, the production of biodiesel from palm trees in degraded procedures were normalized for the other studies based on the
soils may add carbon to the soil and reduce overall GHG emissions. scope of our study.
Fargione et al. [10] assessed a palm tree plantation directly dis- Angarita et al. [3] determined the energy balance of the palm oil
placing a tropical forest ecosystem and a peatland, and they found biodiesel produced in Colombia and Brazil based on different
that the carbon payback time was respectively 86 and 423 years. scenarios. We adopted the average for Colombia’s conventional
Such difference is explained because of the high carbon stock of biodiesel production in our meta-analysis. Because the study by
peatland. Angarita et al. [3] lacks detailed information on inputs for the
In contrast to recent terrestrial carbon budget studies, the agricultural phase, it was not possible to verify either the GHG
evaluation of energy inputs and outputs in the production of bio- emission nor the reduction in fertilizers use due to the use of EFB.
fuels is not new. However, few studies have dealt with the energy We considered that fibers and shells were used as fuel. The mass of
balance of palm oil biodiesel. Nevertheless, because of its high each co-product (glycerin, palm kernel cake, and crude kernel oil)
yields, the use of palm oil as a biodiesel source is increasing [13]. was not disclosed by the studies in our meta-analysis. Therefore, for
Based on this brief discussion, the objective of this work is mass allocation we applied the same values as of our study. For
identifying and evaluating the net GHG emissions and the energy consistency reasons, the inputs for machinery and building were
balance of palm oil biodiesel in Brazil and compare the results with excluded of the analysis. In addition, the values for labor and
studies carried out in other countries. construction were not considered either. Finally, the energy content
of surplus shells was converted into electricity through steam
2. Palm oil biofuel turbines.
Yusoff and Hansen [2] present a life cycle assessment of palm oil
The production of palm oil and palm kernel oil accounts for 36% of in Malaysia. The study comprises the use of fibers and shells for
the world’s vegetable oil production [14]. In comparison, 28% of the steam production, the use of POME for biogas production, the use of
vegetable oil comes from soybeans. Malaysia and Indonesia are EFB and POME as organic fertilizers, and mechanical harvesting.
responsible for 86% of the world’s palm oil production [14]. The Because the study does not present information on the industrial
largest producer in the American continent is Colombia, responsible phase, we have completed the analysis with data from other
for 62% of the continental production. In Brazil, the largest produc- sources [25,26], as shown in Table 1. Because the accessed studies
tion is located in Para State, in the Amazonian region. This State is do not report life cycle energy and emission factors for pesticides,
responsible for 93% of the palm oil produced in the country [13,15]. we adopted the average of insecticides and herbicides from
Although it is possible to use both fruit’s oil and kernel’s oil to Simapro 7.1.8 software. The energy content of palm kernel cake and
produce biodiesel, the biodiesel production in Brazil is based on fatty palm kernel oil was allocated based on its mass.
acids extracted from palm oil fruit through the refining process,
adopted by the Agropalma Group in Tailandia, Para State [16].
Fresh fruit bunches (FFB) are composed of 20e21% of palm oil Table 1
Adopted values for this study.
and 1.7% of palm kernel oil. In addition other co-products are
produced: 3.5% of kernel oil cake, 22e23% of empty fruit bunches, Variable Application Energy Emission Source
12e15% fibers, 5e7% of shells, and 50% of palm oil mill effluent and yield intensity (kg CO2e/kg)
(kg/ha yr) (MJ/kg)
(POME) [17,18].
Nitrogen (Production) 41.20 67.60 3.26
Empty fruit bunches (EFB), which are abundant, may be used to
Nitrogen (Use) 18.60
produce steam and power, and the remaining ashes are used as Phosphorus 80.37 34.70 2.01
fertilizers [12]. However, usually EFBs are applied as organic Potassium 147.76 9.64 0.51
fertilizer [19]. Magnesium 11.54 2.85 1.05
The kernel cake is a co-product of the kernel oil extraction, Herbicide 2.50 407.00 15.50
Insecticide 1.20 405.00 13.70
which is used as animal feed. Shells and fibers are usually used as Boron 5.72 308.25 1.60
fuel in cogeneration schemes. Thus, palm oil refining is self suffi- Methanol 396 37.60 0.79 [27,38,45]
cient with respect to energy consumption, and the use of fossil Calalyst (NaOH) 24 33.13 1.20 [27,46,47]
inputs and their respective GHG emissions is negligible [20,21]. Diesel 74.4 54.10 3.90 [16,38,41,42]
Electricity (Brazilian mix) e e 0.07*
The POME, which is rich in organic matter, may be used in
Palm densitya 143 e e
anaerobic digesters to produce methane (CH4), which is a fuel. The Palm seedsb 180 18.40 e [48]
remaining sludge may be used as fertilizer, and therefore, reduces Pueraria phaseoloides 5 5.52 e
c
the need for inorganic fertilizers [12]. On average, one metric ton of Biodiesel 3963 37.13 e
FFB yields 14 m3 of POME or 25 kWh of electricity [22,23]. Fresh fruit bunch 20,350 e e
Crude palm oil 4172 e e
Crude kernel oil 346 Allocated e
3. Methods Palm kernel cake 712 Allocated e
Empty fruit bunch 4579 Fertilizer e
A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method according to ISO 14044/ Fiber 2747 7.70 e
Shell 1221 11.91 e
2006 was used in this study to determine the energy balance and d
Biogas 14 1.80 e
GHG emissions of biodiesel from palm oil. Our results are part of
a meta-analysis, in which they are compared to results of three *kg CO2e/kWh (Brazilian mix).
a
Tree/ha.
other studies on palm oil biodiesel. Other studies such as ERG b
unit/ha life time; MJ/ha.
Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model (EBAMM) [24] have used meta-anal- c
Conversion rate: 0.95.
d
ysis to compare biofuels production processes. m3/t FFB; kWh/m3.
2554 S.P. de Souza et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2552e2561
Wood and Corley [1] also evaluate the energy balance of palm oil
in Malaysia. Fibers, shells and POME are combusted to produce
power, which fuels the industrial process. The EFB are used as
organic fertilizer and the nutrient content of this material was
presented by these authors. Harvesting is mechanical and energy
consumption due to transport and irrigation is considered. The
energy content of inputs and outputs is disclosed in the paper.
Energy consumption and oil extraction efficiencies of the industrial
phase [25] and other inputs such as methanol and catalysts [27], are
based on previous studies.
Pleanjai and Gheewala [4] have assessed the palm oil biodiesel
chain in Thailand. Fibers are utilized for cogeneration (stem and
electricity). In addition, our meta-analysis considered electricity
production using POME. In their study, the EFB are used as fertilizer.
Harvesting is manual and fossil fuels are consumed only for
transportation of FFB between the field and the refinery. They do
not take into account labor, equipment, and constructions as inputs.
The use of insecticides rodenticides, magnesium, and Boron are not
considered in their study.
Yee et al. [5] assessed the life cycle of palm oil biodiesel in
Malaysia. Fibers and shells are used for cogeneration (steam and
electricity). In addition, our meta-analysis considered electricity
production using POME. In their study, the EFB are used as fertilizer.
Their study takes into account diesel for traction and fertilizers
transport. They do not take into account labor, equipment, and
constructions as inputs. The use of pesticides, magnesium, and
Boron is not considered in their study either.
3.2. Life cycle assessment
In this work we adopted the life cycle assessment method
according to ISO 14044/2006, which is recommended to evaluate
the potential impact of products and processes. However, the LCA
norms are outdated and their application does not result in good
biofuels LCA because land use change effects over time are not
necessarily included in the assessments.
Moreover, several biofuels LCA present conflicting results
because of scope differences and other issues that challenge the
comparison between studies [28]. This highlights the need for
a revised LCA method for biofuels [29], which also facilitates the
proposition of certification schemes and public policies.
3.2.1. Goal and scope
The objectives of this work are identifying and evaluating the
net GHG emissions and the energy balance of palm oil biodiesel in
Brazil and compare the results with studies carried out in other
countries: Wood and Corley [1], Malaysia; Yusoff and Hansen [2],
Malaysia; Angarita et al. [3], Colombia; Pleanjai and Gheewala [4],
Thailand; and Yee et al. [5], Malaysia. The study is based on a “seed-
to-factory gate” approach and uses the methodology described by
the ISO 14044:2006.
Therefore, the study includes the nursery stage, the production
and use of fertilizers and pesticides, harvesting, transport, oil
extraction, transesterification, and finally, the combustion of neat
biodiesel. We have not assessed energy consumption for biodiesel
distribution because most of the biodiesel is locally consumed and
displaces diesel, and still, there is no special infrastructure in place
for biodiesel distribution in Brazil. Most of the biodiesel commer-
cialized in Brazil is mixed with diesel in the oil refinery and sold at
the gas station.
This study’s LCA considers palm oil biodiesel, and its co-prod-
ucts such as kernel oil, kernel cake, fibers, shells, empty fruit
bunches, glycerin, and POME. The latter is used to produce biogas.
In this study, the functional unit (FU) is one hectare of palm trees,
and the reference flux is 4.17 tons of crude palm oil, or 4 tons of
biodiesel. We used three sustainability metrics in our evaluation:
life cycle energy balance, life cycle GHG emissions, and carbon
payback time.
The scope of this work encloses biodiesel production and the
utilization of its co-products (fibers, shells, and POME) for power
production so that the production units are self sustained in terms
of energy consumption. Besides that, EFB are used as organic
fertilizer, reducing the fossil fuel input in the agricultural phase.
Fertilizer application rates are based on low fertility soils and
the utilization of green manure (Pueraria phaseoloides). The appli-
cation rate of pesticides is based on values observed by the Brazilian
Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) in Western Ama-
zonia [34].
When dealing with multiple products that result from a single
process, it is necessary to allocate the inventoried inputs and
outputs [30]. Allocation is usually proportional to market value,
mass or energy content of each co-product. In our analysis, inputs
and outputs were allocated to kernel oil and kernel cake on a mass
basis, considering the whole fresh bunch. The total mass of these 2
co-products corresponds to 5.2% of the bunch mass. For glycerin the
allocation corresponds to 7.9% (mass basis) of the products of the
transesterification phase (biodiesel and glycerin). The remaining
co-products were not allocated because they are consumed during
the biodiesel production process.
For Wood and Corley [1] and Yusoff and Hansen [2], the total
mass of kernel oil and kernel cake corresponds to 8.2% and 12.1%
(mass basis) of the bunch mass, respectively. In the meta-analysis
we have applied the glycerin allocation share of our case study to
Wood and Corley data [1]. In the case of Pleanjai and Gheewala [4]
and Yee et al. [5], the allocation corresponds to 5.4% and 5.2% of the
total FFB mass. Glycerin was allocated to the transesterification
phase that corresponds respectively to 15% and 10% of the resulting
total mass of this phase.
Fertilizer, pesticides and diesel use rates and conversions were
based on data collected from various sources (Table 1). Because
various GHG emission factors are based in international studies, it is
important highlighting that GHG LCA emissions of these inputs could
be overestimated for the reason that 73.4% of the Brazilian electricity
comes from hydropower, which is a renewable energy source [31].
Throughout the calculations we adopted a conversion efficiency
of 95% (mass basis) for palm oil into biodiesel [32] and biodiesel
density equals 0.92 kg/l [33] and the average yield is 20.35 t fresh
bunches/ha yr [16]. For the remained studies we adopted the same
conversion efficiency, except for Yee et al. [5] because a 0.99%
efficiency is explicit in this study. All values used in our meta-
analysis are listed in Table 1.
3.3. Life cycle energy balance
Energy quantification was based on the input inventory for the
nursery, agricultural phase (nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, and
manganese), palm seed’s production, and green manure’s seed
production. These mass values were further multiplied by their
respective energy and GHG intensities. In addition we also deter-
mined the energy input for transport. The energy demand for the
industrial phase was reduced in half because the process is pow-
ered by the combustion of co-products, cogeneration, and uses
methane from POME.
We used data from Embrapa [18,34] and Agropalma [16] to
determine the amount of palm tree seeds, green manure seeds,
fertilizer and pesticide rates. All values emulate a plantation in the
Amazon.
Based on the local climate, irrigation is required only at the plant
nursery stage. Energy intensity of 1 m3 of water is 0.01 MJ/l of water
[35].
 S.P. de Souza et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2552e2561
These data plus energy intensities presented in Table 1 were
used to determine the energy required per hectare of palm trees,
including transportation needs between the field and the pro-
cessing facility. Except for Yusoff and Hansen [2] all the other
studies presented their own energy input values.
We have assumed a 10 metric ton capacity truck with a 5 km/l
mileage unloaded and a 2.5 km/l mileage loaded, and a trip
distance of 20 km between the field and the processing facility.
Large transport distances should be avoided in order to prevent the
acidification of the fruits, which usually takes place 24 h after
harvesting [13]. The transportation to the refinery is done by truck
and on its way back to the field the truck is loaded with empty
bunches that return to the field as bio-fertilizer.
The industrial phase inventory was based on data from the palm
oil extraction [25] and palm oil transesterification (methyl route)
[27]. We have not considered the energy associated with labor to
allow the comparison with other studies.
The LCA energy output includes biofuel energy reported on
a low heating value basis (LHV) [36], electricity generation potential
in the co-products such as shells and fibers [21] and biogas [12]
(Table 1).
Energy flows are presented in terms of net energy ratio (NER), in
which the sum of the net energy output, which includes biofuel and
its electricity surplus, is divided by the net input, which includes
the energy for palm production (agricultural phase), trans-
portation, and palm biodiesel production (industrial phase). These
inputs exclude the energy from steam and electricity from power
plant which is fuelled by co-products. The equation was adapted
from Macedo et al. [37] (Equation (1)).
P  GHGBiodiesel;LCA
Total output net
NER ¼ P
Total input net allocated
3.4. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
Based on the input data, corresponding to the mass of inputs
(diesel for transport, fertilizers and pesticides) utilized for each
hectare of palm oil, and appropriate conversion factors [38], it was
possible to estimate GHG emissions in terms of CO2e. Emissions of
different GHGs are compared based on the global warming
potential (GWP) for 100 years [39]. The same conversion factors
were applied to all results with the exception of the study pub-
lished by Angarita et al. [3], which does not provide the level of the
detail needed to carry out this analysis.
For the industrial phase, in which palm oil is extracted and
biodiesel is produced, GHG emissions correspond to chemicals,
electricity from the grid, and diesel for start-up of the turbines.
Other GHG emissions are nonexistent because all energy inputs are
supplied by co-products from palm oil processing. For electricity
from the grid, we adopted the GHG emission for the electricity mix
production in Brazil, Malaysia, and Thailand, they are respectively
0.073, 0.62, and 0.790 kg CO2e/kWh [40]. In our study we have not
considered emissions due to the manufacturing of equipment and
construction of the facilities.
To quantify emissions due to fossil fuels consumption, the
production [38] and use [41] phases were considered.
3.5. Carbon payback time
The carbon payback time is used to assess and compare the
environmental performance of biofuels with respect to land use
change effects and the overall carbon balance. Different studies
applying this method have been recently published [8e11]. In this
2555
study we adopt the method presented by Gibbs et al. [11], which was
defined as the ecosystem carbon payback time (ECTP) that corre-
sponds to the years required to compensate for the carbon stock of
the displaced ecosystem adding the annual avoided emissions due
to the fossil fuel displaced by the biodiesel (Equation (2)).
Carbonland source  Carbonbiofuel crop
ECTP ¼ (2)
Biofuel carbon saving=ha yr
In our study, land use change corresponds to direct displace-
ment of natural vegetation by palm tree plantations. The carbon
stock content of both a natural forest and a palm tree plantation is
considered. According to Gibbs et al. [11], these values are 197 and
71 tC/ha, respectively. The difference between these two values is
the numerator of equation (2). This information represents generic
values for the Americas. For the other authors we also adopted the
values of Gibbs et al. [11].
In order to determine the avoided carbon due to biodiesel use, it
is necessary to know the emissions associated with fossil fuel based
diesel production. The LCA carbon emissions of diesel production is
0.21 kg C/kg of diesel [42] and the carbon emitted during diesel
combustion equals 0.85 kg C/kg of diesel [41]. The sum of these two
values is subtracted by the LCA emissions of the palm oil biodiesel
to render the denominator of equation (2). This value corresponds
to the avoided carbon per hectare per year and is calculated by
equations (3) and (4).
 
tC
Biofuel carbon saving $yr ¼ GHGdiesel;LCA
ha
(3)
(1)
  
tC
GHGdiesel;LCA $yr ¼ GHGdiesel;production
ha
 1
þ GHGdiesel;combustion 
PClBiodiesel
 hO/B  YCPO ð4Þ
where the first term is given in kg C/MJ of diesel; the LHV is given in
MJ of fuel per kg of diesel; hO/B is the conversion efficiency of palm
oil to biofuel, given in kg biodiesel/kg crude palm oil; and YCPO is
the crude palm oil yield, given in kg CPO/ha.
3.6. Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the effect of some
of the inputs e for example, bunches yield per ha, nitrogen, phos-
phorus, potassium, and magnesium application rate per ha on the
NER and GHG emissions presented by all considered studies and
our study. The effect of pesticides was not assessed because the
information was absent in other studies, and probably this is not
a relevant impact in terms of energy and GHGs. The equipment and
transportation was not evaluated because the approach in each
study was different. Data were independently analyzed; that is,
each input varied and the others were held constant. In the case of
Angarita et al. [3], the only variable included in the sensitivity
analysis was yield. Palm oil, palm kernel cake and palm kernel oil
are proportional to bunch yields.
4. Results and discussion
In this section, LCA results are presented and discussed followed
by a sensitivity analysis of the results.
2556 S.P. de Souza et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2552e2561

4.1. Energy input
The total gross energy input in our study was 67 GJ/ha, without
allocation, and 63 GJ/ha with the allocation of the kernel oil,
kernel cake, and glycerin co-products. The industrial phase was
responsible for 81% of the net energy consumption per hectare.
Electricity and steam from power plant, which result from the
combustion of co-products, are subtracted in the net input
calculation, which equals to 29.5 GJ/ha, if allocation is considered
(Table 2).
The energy input corresponding to the production of the seed-
lings and young palm trees is accounted for once during the 27 year
useful life cycle of the palm tree. This input is minimal compared to
other life cycle inputs. According to our study this value corresponds
to 18 MJ/ha while Pleanjai and Gheewala [4] this value corresponds
to 170 MJ/ha. The values differ because of the approach used in the
assessment.
The values reported in the literature for energy input in the
agricultural phase vary. Angarita et al. [3] reports the higher value,
14.3 GJ/ha and Yee et al. [5] the lower value, 6.5 GJ/ha. In our study,
we estimate that 8.8 GJ/ha are consumed in the agricultural phase.
Amongst the reasons for variance we highlight:
 In Wood and Corley [1], Yusoff and Hansen [2] and Yee et al. [5],
nitrogen application rates are about 2 times higher than in our
case study, which is responsible for about 50% to 60% of the
overall agricultural energy consumption. In Pleanjai and
Gheewala [4] nitrogen application rate is three times greater
than in our case study; and thus nitrogen is responsible for 70%
of all energy input in agriculture. This difference between the

Table 2
Energy input.

This study Wood and Yusoff and Angarita et al. Pleanjai and Yee et al. (2009)
Corley (1991) Hansen (2007) (2009) Gheewala (2009)
Input (GJ/ha yr)
1. Agricultural phase
Seeds (nursery phase) 0.02 e e e 0.17 0.02a
Pueraria phaseoloides 0.03 e e e e e

1.1. Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N) 2.79 5.90 6.49 e 7.61 5.29
Phosphate (P2O5) 2.79 0.54 0.97 e 0.01 0.66
Potassium (K2O) 1.42 2.83 1.66 e 1.67 0.76
Magnesium (MgO) 0.03 0.25 0.14 e e e
Boron (B) 0.18 e e e e
Total 7.25 9.52 9.26 11.10 9.45 6.46

1.2. Pesticides
Herbicide 1.02 0.67 e 0.56 1.72 e
Insecticide 0.49 0.20 e e e e
Rondeticide e 0.40 e e e e
Total 1.50 1.27 3.25 0.56 1.72 0.00

1.3. Irrigation
Water 0.01 0.20 e 2.65 e e

Total 8.81 10.79 12.50 14.32 11.17 6.46

2. Fuel
Harvesting (field) Manual 1.75 3.25a e e e
Transport (as far as field) 0.76 e e e e e
Transport (as far as mill) 3.05 2.33 e e e e
Total transport (mill-field-mill) 3.81 e 5.71 e 7.09 10.77b
Personnel transport e 0.05 e e e e

Total 3.81 4.13 8.96 1.93 7.09 10.77

3. Industrial phase
3.1. Oil extraction
Electricity from power plant 1.49 1.31 1.39 2.26 6.02 0.99
Electricity from grid 0.02 0.01 0.02 e 0.07 e
Steam from power plant 34.41 30.44 32.13 30.24 18.06 36.16
Diesel for start-up 0.90 e e e 0.54 0.34
Total 36.82 31.77 33.53 32.50 24.69 37.49

3.2. Transesterification
Methanol 14.90 13.82 14.29 19.96 13.37 0.07
Catalyst (NaOH) 0.79 0.73 0.76 e 0.44 0.01
Electricity from grid 2.37 2.20 2.27 0.85 0.02 0.42
Steam e e e 6.58 e 4.95
Total 18.06 16.75 17.32 27.38 13.84 5.45

Total 54.88 48.52 50.85 59.88 38.53 42.94

Total input gross 67.50 63.44 72.31 76.12 56.78 60.17
Total input gross allocated 63.50 58.29 64.29 71.42 52.39 56.78
Total input net 31.60 31.69 38.79 43.62 32.71 23.01
Total input net allocated 29.47 29.14 34.83 40.62 29.61 21.56

The italic values refer to those used for net energy quantification.
a
Include electricity usage in administration, research, laboratory and nursery buildings.
b
Include diesel for traction and fertilizers transportation.
 S.P. de Souza et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2552e2561
application rates might be due to the use of green manure in
the system analyzed in our case study;
 The energy intensity adopted by Wood and Corley [1] for
potassium is 1.5 times as much the one from Simapro [38],
which was adopted in our study. Besides this, the application
rate is almost 2 times greater than our study;
 The magnesium application rates reported by Wood and Corley
[1] and Yusoff and Hansen [2] are four times greater than the
one adopted in this study. Besides that, the energy intensity
adopted by Wood and Corley [1] is 2.5 times greater than the
one from Simapro [38], which was adopted in this study.
Magnesium application is not considered in Pleanjai and
Gheewala [4] and Yee et al. [5] studies;
 In our study, the energy input for phosphate production is
similar to nitrogen;
 For pesticides, the comparative assessment is difficult due to
large variations between the local conditions and external
influences. Beside this, Yee et al. [5] didn’t include the pesticide
application.
 The high irrigation intensity presented in Angarita et al. [3] is
due to the irrigation of palm trees in Colombia;
 The work by Angarita et al. [3] does not present details on the
agricultural phase and therefore it is impossible to consider the
use of EFB as organic fertilizers and its respective abatement
potential.
The inventory of the agricultural phase allowed us to identify
that potassium is the most important macronutrient for the palm
trees (150 kg/ha year). However, nitrogen and phosphate are asso-
ciated with the greatest energy intensities.
Energy consumption as fuel is 3.8 GJ/ha, which is lower than
Wood and Corley [1], Yusoff and Hansen [2] and Yee et al. [5] in
which harvesting is mechanized. Although Angarita et al. [3] study
refers to mechanized agriculture his values for diesel consumption
are low. In manual harvesting schemes the workers carry bunches
to the road to be loaded in trucks and transported to the processing
units. In this case, energy consumption is associated with the truck
trips between the field and the processing unit, which may also be
significant. For example, Pleanjai and Gheewala [4] assumed that
the fuel energy for transporting fresh bunches was 7 GJ/ha.
The energy intensity of diesel fuel adopted in the analyzed studies
varies. In our assessment and in the study done by Yusoff and Hansen
[2], the life cycle energy intensity, which is greater than the heat
content of diesel fuel, was adopted. Such an approach renders
a negative energy balance for diesel fuel (1:0.77) [43]. In contrast,
Angarita et al. [3], Wood and Corley [1] and Pleanjai and Gheewala [4]
adopted the heat content of diesel. This approach reduces the total
energy input of diesel fuel from 3.81 to 2.93. Yee et al. [5] account for
a greater diesel energy input than the other authors because they add
the life cycle energy intensity of diesel to its heat content.
The industrial phase, which includes oil extraction and trans-
esterification, is responsible for about 60% of the total net energy
consumption, ignoring the energy content of the co-products (this
study). The study done by Yee et al. [5], reports the lowest share
associated with the industrial phase (25%). The largest net energy
demands are related to methanol which is 43%, on average for all
studies. According to our study, methanol was responsible for 47%
of the total energy consumption of biodiesel production.
4.2. Energy output
Including energy from biodiesel (low heating value) and surplus
energy, the energy output equals to 158 GJ/ha, out of which 147 and
11 GJ/ha corresponds respectively to biodiesel and surplus energy.
Surplus energy is the difference between the heat content of the co-
2557
products (fiber, shells, and biogas) and the electricity from the
power plant (Table 3).
In the work by Wood and Corley [1], the heating content of the
fibers is 3 times greater than the one considered in our work, in
which the conversion efficiency of the fibers into useful energy was
considered. In our assessment we determine the heat content of
fibers and shells separately. The heat content of fibers and shells are
respectively 8 and 12 MJ/kg, considering 68% boiler efficiency [21].
In contrast, Yee et al. [5], consider fibers and shells together with
a heat content of 19.89 MJ/kg.
Because Angarita et al. [3] consider a higher energy input than
the other studies its NER is lower than the other studies.
The higher value of surplus energy from the combustion of co-
products is reported by Wood and Corley [1], around 18% of the net
energy output, which is delivered to the grid. Their study does not
consider boiler efficiency. Angarita et al. [3] do not mention values
for fibers and biogas.
The NER ratio in our study resulted in 5.4 (biofuel plus electricity
surplus). This result has demonstrated that the energy yield from
biodiesel production is around 5 times greater than the energy
input in its production. The energy balances for all the assessments
are presented in Table 3.
4.3. Greenhouse gas emissions
Biodiesel production results in low emissions due to the use of
co-products to produce power, and the use of green manure, which
prevents the use of fossil fuels. Amongst the inputs, nitrogen is
associated with the highest contribution to overall GHG emissions
(3.3 kg CO2e/kg of upstream emissions [38] and 18.6 kg CO2e/kg of
soil emissions [44]). Due to the manual harvesting, the diesel
consumption during the transportation of bunches to the pro-
cessing unit was responsible for 14% of the total GHG emissions.
The industrial phase and agricultural phase contributed with 21%
and 64%, respectively of the total LCA emissions. In the industrial
phase, the most significant contribution is attributed to methanol
production, which is derived from fossil fuel. This input is respon-
sible for up to 16% of the life cycle emissions of palm oil biodiesel. In
the agricultural phase, the highest emission comes from nitrogen,
which is responsible for 47% of the total life cycle emission.
 According to Wood and Corley [1], Yusoff and Hansen [2],
Pleanjai and Gheewala [4] and Yee et al. [5] emissions associ-
ated with the agricultural phase were respectively 75%, 61%,
74% and 71% of the total emissions. This reflects high nitrogen
use related emissions. Emissions from the industrial phase are
mainly due to methanol use. We have not considered emissions
due to equipment production.
Consequently, the total life cycle emissions in our study were
1437 kg CO2e/ha.year if allocation is considered and 1900 kg CO2e/
ha.year if allocation is not considered. According to Wood and
Corley [1], Yusoff and Hansen [2], Pleanjai and Gheewala [4] and
Yee et al. [5], emissions were respectively 1259, 2219, 3623, and
2521 kg CO2e/ha (Table 4).
In comparison to results based in studies done in other countries,
the combustion of co-products in high-efficiency boilers and turbines
for power production, which is delivered to the grid, reduces life cycle
GHG emissions even if most of the displaced electricity comes from
hydroelectric power plants, as is the case in Brazil.
4.4. Carbon payback
Despite low life cycle GHG emissions, when compared with
diesel and another cultures for biofuels [6], soil carbon loss, due to
2558 S.P. de Souza et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2552e2561

Table 3
Energy output and gross energy balance.

This study Wood and Yusoff and Angarita et al. Pleanjai and Yee et al.
Corley (1991) Hansen (2007) (2009) Gheewala (2009) (2009)
Output (GJ/ha yr)
Biodiesel 147.15 136.51 141.09 185.99 93.40 144.27
Fiber 21.16 64.27 24.03 e e e
Shell 14.54 19.11 18.10 e 20.73 71.89
Effluent (biogas) 1.85 9.38 1.72 e 1.54 1.72
Electricity surplus 11.03 29.60 13.23 4.60 7.42 23.54

Total output net (biofuel þ electricity surplus) 158.18 166.11 154.32 190.59 100.82 167.81

Total output net (only biofuel) 147.15 136.51 141.09 185.99 93.40 144.27

NER ratio (biofuel þ electricity surplus) 5.37 5.70 4.43 4.69 3.40 7.78

NER ratio (only biofuel) 4.99 4.68 4.05 4.58 3.15 6.69

The italic values refer to those used for net energy quantification.

the displacement of a natural ecosystem by palm trees, poses
a significant effect. The carbon debt associated with the forest
displacement equals to 126 tC/ha and this deficit is only compen-
sated after 39 years by means of the annual displacement of diesel
and its respective avoided emissions (3.6 tC/ha year). Consequently,
up to the 39th year the biodiesel plantation will be a net GHG
source. However, as we have observed one way to reduce the
payback time is increasing the yield per ha of the plantation.
Besides that, the land use change assessment may differ if site
specific information is considered [12]. For Wood and Corley [1],
Yusoff and Hansen [2], Pleanjai and Gheewala [4] and Yee et al. [5]
the ECTP is 43 years on average.

Table 4
Greenhouse gas emission balance.

This study Wood and Corley (1991) Yusoff and Hansen (2007) Pleanjai and Gheewala (2009) Yee et al. (2009)
Output (kg CO2e/ha year)
1. Agricultural phase
1.1. Fertilizer
Nitrogen (N) 903.76 1651.06 1399.04 2896.57 1661.36
Phosphate (P2O5) 161.83 62.23 32.16 1.73 172.86
Potassium (K2O) 74.69 104.41 30.30 123.77 60.10
Magnesium (MgO) 12.14 36.75 29.40 e e
Boron (B) 9.15 e e e e
Total 1165.08a 1854.45 1490.90 3022.07 1894.32

1.2. Pesticides
Herbicide 38.75 52.70 e 99.98 e
Insecticide 16.44 13.70 e e e
Rondeticide e e e e e
Total 55.19 66.40 23.71 99.98 0.00

Total 1220.27 1920.85 1514.61 3122.05 1894.32

2. Fuel
Harvesting (field) Manual 136.39 233.36b e e
Transport (as far as field) 54.91 e e e e
Transport (as far as mill) 219.63 181.86 e e e
Total transport (mill-field-mill) 274.54 e 411.81 661.68 764.27
Personnel transport e 3.79 e e e

Total 274.54 322.04 645.17 661.68 764.27

3. Industrial phase
3.1. Oil extraction
Electricity from power plant e e e e e
Electricity from grid 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.30 e
Steam from power plant e e e e e
Diesel for start-up 65.07 e e 50.23 24.16
Total 65.08 0.07 0.07 50.53 24.16

3.2. Transesterification
Methanol 311.50 288.97 298.68 372.44 3.22
Catalyst (NaOH) 28.53 26.47 27.36 31.59 0.25
Electricity from grid 1.30 10.21 10.56 0.10 1.94
Steam e e e e e
Total 341.34 325.66 336.60 404.13 5.42

Total 406.42 325.72 336.67 454.65 29.57

Total GHG emission 1901.23 2568.61 2496.45 4238.38 2688.16
Total GHG emission allocated 1436.51 1258.70 2218.87 3623.05 2521.76
a
Nursery phase correspond with 3.51 kg CO2e/ha.
b
Diesel use for machinery.
 S.P. de Souza et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2552e2561 2559

Fig. 1. Net energy ratio sensitivity analysis.

According to Gibbs et al. [11]; when a forest is displaced by palm
trees and biodiesel displaces diesel, the corresponding annual
carbon savings vary between 1.1 and 2.1 tC/ha year, without taking
into account life cycle emissions. Therefore, if the life cycle emis-
sions are considered, the denominator of equation (2) is lower, and
therefore, the carbon payback time is greater.
According to Fargione et al. [10], the annual carbon payback
associated with the displacement of tropical forests in Malaysia and
Indonesia by palm trees is 1.93 tC/ha.year. The main discrepancy
with the result of their study is due to the life cycle emissions. Life
cycle emissions reported by Fargione et al. [10] correspond to
2800 kg CO2e/ha year whereas in our assessment they correspond
to 1437 kg CO2e/ha year. The difference might be justified by
distinct fertilizers application rates, use of co-products as green
fertilizers and as an energy source. The payback time estimated by
Fargione et al. [10] was 86 years. Besides their low annual
replacement value, the value adopted for the carbon stock of the
palm tree plantation is half of the one considered in this study,
36 tC/ha and 71 tC/ha, respectively.
4.5. Sensitivity analysis
The results for sensitivity analysis are presented in Figs. 1 and 2.
On each figure the horizontal axis demonstrates the variation of
each parameter based on the value adopted in this study. The
vertical axis represents the NER variation (Fig. 1) and the GHG
emissions variation (Fig. 2) change due to the variance in the
selected input parameter.
For all the considered parameters, the greatest variation was due
to nitrogen application which is 2.3 higher for Wood and Corley [1],
Yusoff and Hansen [2], Pleanjai and Gheewala [4] and Yee et al. [5],
on average, than our study. This resulted in a 9% reduction in the
energy balance and increased GHG emissions by 78%. Besides the
large variation on the application rate of this fertilizer, the energy

Fig. 2. GHG emission sensitivity analysis.

2560 S.P. de Souza et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2552e2561
content and GHG emissions associated with nitrogen are also high
(Table 1). This variance might result from the use of green manure
and the corresponding reduction of inorganic fertilizer demand.
The application rate of phosphorous considered by the other
authors, excluding Yee et al. [5], is 75%, on average, lower than the
one in our study, which causes a 8% reduction in the GHG emissions
and 7.2% increase in the NER ratio.
The potassium rate in our study is 16%, 40% and 66% lower in
comparison to the reported by Yusoff and Hansen [2], Wood and
Corley [1] and Pleanjai and Gheewala [4], respectively. These
amounts could decrease the NER by 1% to 3% and increase the GHG
emissions by 1% to 3%. The application rate presented by Pleanjai
and Gheewala [4] is 66% higher than the value adopted in our case
study, which explains the reduction of 3% in the NER and the
increase of 3% in the GHG emissions.
In the case of magnesium, due to the small mass applied, in this
study this nutrient was almost supplied by the return of the EFB to
the field. In the other studies, the magnesium application rate is
around 4 times greater.
Despite increasing the fertilizer’s demand, the use of EFB to
power production would enhance the energy balance. This results
because energy produced from the combustion of co-products is
greater than energy required to produce fertilizers. However, this
scenario would contribute with increasing GHG emissions since the
surplus energy does not displace a considerable amount of GHG
emissions because of the characteristics of the Brazilian energy
mix.
5. Conclusions
Biodiesel production from palm oil has its largest energy input
in industrial phase. The divergence between the authors was crit-
ical in the agricultural phase. The sensitivity analysis showed that
nitrogen causes a large influence on the NER ratio and GHG and its
application is significantly reduced by the use of Pueraria
phaseoloides.
Despite manual harvesting, in our study, fuel consumption is
responsible for 18% of the GHG emissions in palm biodiesel life
cycle, including diesel for boiler start-up. ECTP is affected by land
use change carbon budget and life cycle emissions. These two
assessments are required to portray the actual performance of
biodiesel as a GHG emission reduction option.
References
[1] Wood BJ, Corley RH. The energy balance of oil palm cultivation. In: PORIM intl.
palm oil conference e agriculture; 1991.
[2] Yusoff S, Hansen SB. Feasibility study of performing an life cycle assessment
on crude palm oil production in Malaysia. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 2007;12:50e8.
[3] Angarita EE, Lora EE, Costa RE, Torres EA. The energy balance in the palm oil-
derived methyl ester (PME) life cycle for the cases in Brazil and Colombia.
Renewable Energy 2009;34:2905e13.
[4] Pleanjai S, Gheewala SH. Full chain energy analysis of biodiesel production
from palm oil in Thailand. Applied Energy 2009;86:S209e14.
[5] Yee KF, Tan KT, Abdullah AZ, Lee KT. Life cycle assessment of palm biodiesel:
revealing facts and benefits for sustainability. Applied Energy 2009;86:
S189e96.
[6] Gibbs HK, Johnston M, Foley JA, Holloway T, Monfreda C, Ramankutty N, et al.
Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: the
effects of changing yield and technology. Environmental Research Letters
2008;3:10.
[7] Hunt S, Esterly J, Faaij A, Flavin C, Moreira JR, Lynd L, et al. Current status of the
biofuel industry and markets. In: Biofuels for transport global potential and
implications for energy and agriculture. 1st ed. Earthscan Publications; 2007.
p. 3e9.
[8] Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, et al. Use
of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions
from land use change. Science 2008;319:1238e40.
[9] Gallagher E. The Gallagher review of indirect effects of biofuels production,
England. Renewable Fuels Agency; 2008.
[10] Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P. Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt. Science 2008;319:1235e8.
[11] Gibbs HK, Johnston M, Foley JA, Zaks D. Carbon payback times for crop-based
biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology.
Environmental Research Letters 2008;3:10.
[12] Wicke B, Dornburg V, Faaij A. A greenhouse gas balance of electricity
production from Co-firing palm oil products from Malaysia. Utrecht,
Netherlands: Universiteit Utrecht, Copernicus Institute, Department of
Science, Technology and Society; 2007.
[13] Furlan Jr J, Kaltner FJ, Azevedo GF, Campos IA. Biodiesel: Porque tem que ser
dendê; 2006. p. 205.
[14] USDA. Oilseeds: world markets and trade. United States Department of
Agriculture, USDA; 2009.
[15] Agrianual, Anuário Estatístico da Agricultura Brasileira. São Paulo: FNP Con-
sultoria & Comércio; Editora Argos; 2008.
[16] Agropalma. Personal information. Tailandia, PA; 2009.
[17] Ngan MA, May CY, Yusof B. In: Energy Forum, Langkawi; 1993. p. 26e7.
[18] Embrapa/MAPA. A cultura do dendezeiro na Amazônia Brasileira. Belém, PA;
Manaus, AM: Embrapa Amazônia Ocidntal, Embrapa Amazônia Oriental,
Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento; 2000.
[19] Gutiérrez LF, Sánchez ÓJ, Cardona CA. Process integration possibilities for
biodiesel production from palm oil using ethanol obtained from lignocellu-
losic residues of oil palm industry. Bioresource Technology 2009;100:
1227e37.
[20] Husain Z, Zainal ZA, Abdullah MZ. Analysis of biomass-residue-based
cogeneration system in palm oil mills. Biomass and Bioenergy 2003;24:
117e24.
[21] Mahlia TM, Abdulmuin MZ, Alamsyah TM, Mukhlishien D. An alternative
energy source from palm wastes industry for Malaysia and Indonesia. Energy
Conversion and Management 2001;42:2109e18.
[22] Shirai Y, Wakisaka M, Yacob S, Hassan MA, Suzuki S. Reduction of methane
released from palm oil mill lagoon in Malaysia and its countermeasures.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies For Global Climate Change 2003;8:
237e52.
[23] Basiron Y, Weng CK. The oil palm and its sustainability. Journal of Oil Palm
Research 2004;16:1e10.
[24] Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, Hare MO, Kammen DM. Ethanol can
contribute to energy and environmental goals. Berkeley, CA.: Energy and
Resources Group (ERG), University of California; 2006.
[25] Schmidt JH. Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Development;
2007:276.
[26] Janulis P. Reduction of energy consumption in biodiesel fuel life cycle.
Renewable Energy 2004;29:861e71.
[27] Wicke B, Dornburg V, Junginger M, Faaij A. Different palm oil production
systems for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas implications. Biomass
and Bioenergy 2008;32:1322e37.
[28] Gnansounou E, Dauriat A, Villegas J, Panichelli L. Life cycle assessment of
biofuels: energy and greenhouse gas balances. Bioresource Technology
2009;100:4919e30.
[29] Davis SC, Anderson-teixeira KJ, Delucia EH. Life-cycle analysis and the ecology
of biofuels. Trends in Plant Science 2009;14:140e6.
[30] Luo L, van der Voet E, Huppes G. Allocation issues in LCA methodology: a case
study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 2009;14:529e39.
[31] Brasil/EPE. Balanço Energético Nacional 2009: Ano Base 2008. Trans-
formation; 2009:276.
[32] Whitaker M, Heath G. Life cycle assessment of the use of Jatropha biodiesel in
Indian locomotives, Golden, Colorado. National Renewable Energy Laboratory;
2008.
[33] Knothe G, Gerpen JV, Krahl J, Ramos LP. Manual de Biodiesel. 1st ed. São Paulo,
SP: Edgard Blücher; 2006.
[34] Embrapa. Personal information. Embrapa Amazônia Oriental; 2002.
[35] Pimentel D, Patzek TW. Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and
wood; biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Natural Resources
Research 2005;14:65e76.
[36] Benjumea P, Agudelo J, Agudelo A. Effect of altitude and palm oil biodiesel
fuelling on the performance and combustion characteristics of a HSDI diesel
engine. Fuel 2009;88:725e31.
[37] Macedo ID, Seabra JE, Silva JE. Green house gases emissions in the
production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006
averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass and Bioenergy 2008;32:
582e95.
[38] Simapro. Classroom 2.0, Amersfoort. The Netherlands: PreConsultants BV;
2008.
[39] Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, et al.
Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of working group I to
the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate
change, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. IPCC; 2001.
[40] IEA. CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. Highlights; 2009.
[41] IPCC. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Hayama, Japan.
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, IGES; 2006.
[42] Eucar. Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in
the European context. Version 2b. CONCAWE and JRC/IES; 2006.
[43] Annual energy review 2007, USA. USA: Energy Information Administration;
2008.
 S.P. de Souza et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2552e2561 2561

[44] Crutzen PJ, Mosier AR, Smith KA, Winiwarter W. N2O release from agro-bio-
fuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2008;8:389e95.
[45] Ecoinvent database Data. Ecoinvent; 2004.
[46] PRé Consultants. No Title; 2004.
[47] Ahmed I, Decker J, Morris D. How much energy does it take to make a gallon
of soydiesel?; 1994.
[48] Gazzoni DL, Felici PH, Coronato RM, Ralisch R. Balanço Energético Das Culturas
De Soja E Girassol Para Produção De Biodiesel. Biomassa & Energia
2005;4:259e65.