Energy balances and greenhouse gas emissions of crude palm oil production system

in Indonesia (Case study: Mill P, PT X, Sumatera Island)

Pertiwi Andarani, Winardi Dwi Nugraha, and Wieddya

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1823, 020064 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4978137

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4978137
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1823/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 Energy Balances and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Crude
Palm Oil Production System in Indonesia (Case Study: Mill
P, PT X, Sumatera Island)
Pertiwi Andarani1,a), WinardiDwi Nugraha1,b), and Wieddya1,c)
1
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University, Jl. Prof.H. Soedarto,
S.H., Semarang 50275, Indonesia
a)
Corresponding author: andarani@ft.undip.ac.id; andarani@gmail.com
b)
winardi_punk@yahoo.com
c)
wieddyasudardi@gmail.com

Abstract.Indonesia is one of the largest palm oil producers in the world. The total exported crude palm oil (CPO) and its
derivatives in 2015 reached about 26.40 million tons or increase at 21% compared to the previous year (2014). However,
the further expansion of the CPO production system could potentially have environmental impacts. The objective of this
study is to analyze the energy balances and greenhouse gas emissions at mill P, PT X located in Sumatera Island. System
analysis approaches was applied to this study and the assessment was focused on a CPO production system in PT XYZ
located on the Sumatera Island. The system boundary was determined based on the field study. The data collection
consisted of all the input and output energy which involving all input materials (including fertilizers, herbicides,
pesticides, water, etc.) and energy consumption (consumption of diesel, electricity, etc.) starting from plantation activities
(at the oil palm plantation) to the conversion process (at the palm oil mill). The energy output from biodiesel was 480.46
GJ/ha (2014) and decreased to 450.79 GJ/ha (2015). Surplus energy from biogas was 15.21 GJ/ha (2014) and 13.57
GJ/ha (2015). The NEP was 494.56 GJ/ha and decreased to 317.84 GJ/ha. Meanwhile, the NER decreased from 3.27
(2014) to 3.17 (2015). The NEP in this mill is significantly higher than other related studies of similar palm oil
production system in other companies. The emission of the activities in the palm estate increased from 12.50
kgCO2eq/ton FFB to 22.057 kgCO2eq/ton FFB. In the palm oil mill, the emission decreased from 2,509.93 kgCO2eq/ton
CPO to 2,057.14 kgCO2eq/ton CPO.

INTRODUCTION
Indonesia is one of the largest crude palm oil producers in the world. The General Directorate of Estate [1]
estimated the crude palm oil production reached 30,948,951 tons in 2015. GAPKI also estimated that Indonesia
exported 26.40 million tons crude palm oil and its derivatives in 2015, or, increased up to 21% compared to exports
amount in 2014. Nevertheless, the sustainability of palm oil production is questionable according to some countries
and NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) [3, 4]. They claimed that further expansion could adversely affect the
environment, such as the increase of greenhouse gas emission due to peat land and forest conversion to oil palm
plantation. Not only the oil palm plantation, but also the palm oil mills could potentially affect the environment if
the wastes are not treated properly. The palm oil production system should be analyzed as a whole to identify
potential improvement strategy in order to reduce GHG emission as well as energy consumption.
Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is one of the tools that can be used. Researches on the LCA of palm oil and its
derivatives such as biofuel have been conducted in several countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand.
Hidayatno et al. [5] studied the LCA of palm oil-based biodiesel production palm oil in Indonesia using cradle-to-
gate system. The largest environmental impact was climate change (40.52%), followed by photooxidant formation
(33.55%) and eutrophication (25.42%), according to Hidayatno et al [5]. If compared to another plant, i.e. Jatropha,

International Conference on Chemistry, Chemical Process and Engineering (IC3PE) 2017

AIP Conf. Proc. 1823, 020064-1–020064-11; doi: 10.1063/1.4978137
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1491-4/$30.00

020064-1
the biodiesel derived from palm oil had larger environmental burden by 66% [6]. According to Aryapratama [7],
LCA results could be different based on the methods and material characteristics used in the production system.
The sustainability issue of palm oil production is not only related to the environmental impacts, but also the
energy consumption. The energy balance for a biofuel production system can be defined as the relation between the
energy produced (output per kg biodiesel) and the energy consumed (input per kg biodiesel) for each unit of product
[8]. In this study, it is assumed that the CPO will be converted to biofuel. Net energy balance comprises of total
energy consumption for the production (total energy input) and total yield energy (total energy output). The net
energy balance can be calculated from net energy ratio (NER) and net energy production (NEP). The higher the
positive values of NER and NEP, the better the performance of the production system.Therefore, the objective of
this study is to calculate and analyze the greenhouse gas emission and net energy balance of crude palm oil
production system in PT X located in Sumatera Island.

METHODS

Crude Palm Oil Production System and System Boundary

In this study, the lifecycle assessment was conducted to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions and net energy
balance. Based on the field study, the system boundary of this research has been established (Fig. 1). The crude palm
oil production system in PT X is started from fresh fruit bunches (FFB) cultivation in the oil palm estate until crude
palm oil is produced in the palm oil mill. Almost all of the by-product and waste in this mill are utilized in the
system. Shell and fiber are used as alternative fuel in the boiler to produce steam. The fossil fuel is only used when
the shell and fiber are not sufficient. Palm oil mill effluent (POME) is treated by anaerobic digestion so that it
produces biogas. The biogas can provide the main electricity for the palm oil mill. The treated POME from biogas
plant is flowed to the lagoon that is used to land application at the palm estate. However, empty fruit bunches (EFB)
are still incinerated and the ashes are applied to the palm estate as the fertilizer. Palm kernel is the by-product and
has been processed to produce palm kernel oil in the palm kernel oil mill.

020064-2
 Fossil Primary
Water
resources Energy

System Boundary

Background Stage
Chemical
Energy Production
Production

Foreground stage

Fertilizer
Palm Estate
Land Application

FFB
WTP

Downstream
CPO
Industry

Kernel
Palm Oil Mill

Shell
Palm Kernel
Boiler
Oil Mill
Fiber

POME Biogas Waste

Water

EFB
Incinerator Ash

FIGURE 1. System Boundary of CPO Production System in Mill P, PT X

(FFB: Fresh Fruit Bunch; CPO: Crude Palm Oil; POME: Palm Oil Mill Effluent; WTP: Water Treating Plant; EFB: Empty Fruit
Bunch)

Calculation of Net Energy Balance

The net energy balance was analyzed using net energy ratio (NER) and net energy production (NEP). In this
case, it is assumed that the CPO will be converted to biofuel, such as biodiesel. The low heating value (LHV) of
palm oil-based biodiesel from Indonesia is 36.5 MJ/kg biodiesel [9]. The NER and NEP are calculated as follows:
NER = ( EF + EB ) / EI (1)
NEP = EF + EB – EI (2)

020064-3
Where:
EF = output energy of biofuel (MJ/ha/yr)
EB = output energy of by-product (MJ/ha/yr)
EI = total energy input (MJ/ha/yr)
TABLE 1.Energy input in CPO production
No Item Unit Value Source
1 Urea (CH4N2O) MJ/Kg 33,2 [10]
2 Triple Super Phosphate (P2O5) MJ/Kg 2,8 [10]
3 Rock Phospate (P,Ca) MJ/Kg 1,3 [10]
4 Muriate of Potash (K,Cl) MJ/Kg 3,5 [10]
5 Kieserite (Mg) MJ/Kg 2 [10]
6 Dolomite (Mg, Ca) MJ/Kg 0,5 [10]
7 Herbicides MJ/Kg 215 [10]
8 Diesel Fuel MJ/Kg 47,6 [11]
9 Electricity MJ/Kg 10,47 [12]
10 NaOH MJ/Kg 19,87 [13]
11 Fosfat MJ/Kg 17,43 [13]
12 Sulfit MJ/Kg 0,0478 [14]
13 Alum MJ/Kg 212 [15]
14 Sodium Karbonat MJ/Kg 5,58 [16]
15 CaCO3 MJ/Kg 18 [18]

Calculation of Greenhouse Gases Emission

The calculation of greenhouse gases emission inventory was adopted from Saswattecha et al [17] who analyzed
the environmental impact of the crude palm oil production system in Thailand. It should be take a note that the
impacts from land-use conversion were not considered in this case. Furthermore, the allocation factor of CPO in this
company is 0.84. However, only greenhouse gases emissions were considered, as the following equations:
Activity Level:
AFFB α= Aα/FFB (3)
ACPO α= Aα/CPO (4)
Emission:
EFFB ε, α= AFFB α x EF ε, α (5)
ECPO ε, α= ACPO α x EF ε, α (6)
Eoverall ε, α=∑(EFFBε,α×% Source) + ECPO ε,α (7)
EFFB ε= ∑α EFFB ε,α (8)
ECPO ε= ∑α ECPO ε,α (9)
EOverall ε= ∑α EOverall ε, α (10)

Where:
α = index for activity: production, transportation, and use of all inputs used in the palm estate and the
palm oil mill;
ε = index for pollutant emitted: CO2, CH4, N2O;
%Source = % source from FFB;
Aα =level of activity α (activity unit/year (y));
AFFB,α = level of activity α for palm estate (activity unit/t FFB/y);
ACPO,α = level of activity α for palm oil mill (activity unit/ton (t) CPO/y);
CPO = CPO produced (t CPO/y);

020064-4
FFB = FFB produced (t FFB/y);
EFFBε, α = emission of compound ε due to activity α for palm estate (kg pollutant/t FFB/y);
ECPOε, α = emission of compound ε due to activity α for palm oil mill (kg pollutant/t CPO/y);
EOverallε,α = total emission of compound ε due to activity α for palm oil production system (kg pollutant/t
CPO/y);
EFFB,ε = total emission of all activities in oil palm estate (kg pollutant/t FFB/y);
ECPO,ε = total emission of all activities in palm oil mill (kg pollutant/t CPO/y)
EOverall,ε = total emission of all activities in palm oil production system (kg pollutant/t CPO/y)
EFε,α = emission factor of compound εdue to activity α (g of compound ε/kg of activity α)
TABLE 2. Emission Factor
Activity Value Unit References
Emission factor for energy consumption and transportation
CO2 from biomass incineration 1.19 kg CO2eq/kg [20]
CO2 from diesel fuel consumption 3.14 kgCO2eq/liter [21]
Transportation and fuel consumption (loaded) 0.49 liter/km [21]
Transportation and fuel consumption (unloaded) 0.25 liter/km [21]
Emission from chemical substance consumption in boiler and Water Treating Plant
CO2 from NaOH consumption 0.47 kg CO2eq/kg [21]
CO2 from Phosphate consumption 3.01 kg CO2eq/kg [21]
CO2 from Sulphide consumption 1.50 kg CO2eq/kg [21]
CO2 from Alum consumption 0.53 kg CO2eq/kg [21]
CO2 from HCl consumption 0.75 kg CO2eq/kg [21]
CO2 from Sodium carbonate sonumption 1.19 kg CO2eq/kg [21]
CO2 from CaCO3 consumption 0.02 kg CO2eq/kg [21]
Emission from agrochemical production
Urea Fertilizer (kg N) 3.31 kg CO2eq/kg N [21]
N Fertilizer (kg N) 5.88 kg CO2eq/kg N [21]
P2O5 Fertilizer (kg P2O5) 1.01 kg CO2eq/kg [21]
K2O Fertilizer (kg K2O) 0.57 kg CO2eq/kg [21]
MgO Fertilizer (kg MgO) 1.07 kg CO2eq/kg [22]
CaO Fertilizer (kg CaO) 0.13 kg CO2eq/kg [21]
ZnSO4 Fertilizer (kg ZnSO4) 2.00 kg CO2eq/kg [22]
CuSO4 Fertilizer (kg CuSO4) 2.00 kg CO2eq/kg [22]
MgSO4 Fertilizer (kg MgSO4) 0.32 kg CO2eq/kg [22]
Borate Fertilizer (kg B2O3) 0.09 kg CO2eq/kg [22]
Herbicide, pesticide, rodenticide 10.97 kg CO2eq/kg [21]

Emission from agrochemical consumption

N2O from agrochemical consumption 4.87 kg CO2eq/kg nutrient [21]

Data Collection
According to the system boundary, there are background stage and foreground stage. Background stage is the
production system supporting the foreground stage. The emission coming from the background stage is indirect
emission from the crude palm oil production system. Meanwhile, background stage is the whole production system
that produces crude palm oil as the main product. The data were collected from mill P of PT X, located in Sumatera
Island for the year of 2014 and 2015.

020064-5
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Net Energy Balances

Energy required to produce CPO (energy input) can be seen in Table 3. In order to calculate net energy, it is
assumed that the CPO will be converted to biofuel, although PT X does not produce biofuel. Furthermore, based on
Sugiyono [24], one ton CPO can produce 0.9 ton biodiesel. In 2014, the amount of CPO produced in mill P, PT X,
was 59,751 tons, then decreased to 56,062 tons in 2015. The amount of biodiesel that can be produced are 53,776 to
50,942 tons. According to Table 2, it is clear that the largest energy consumptions is at methanol production.
However, in the PT X, because the biofuel production is not conducted, the largest energy consumption in Mill P,
PT X is electricity (2.08), followed by urea consumption and diesel for transportation. The transportation and
distribution for chemical, such as fertilizer, herbicides, etc, from the manufacturers/distributors were not included in
this study. Compared to the palm estate, the palm oil mill has higher value of energy input. It should be noted that in
2015, the company applied higher amount of urea because the FFB production decreased. Urea consumption has the
largest energy input in the palm estate. It is in accordance with other studies that fertilizer production is one of the
three highest energy input in palm oil-based biofuel [9, 23]. According to Al Hakim [25] who studied LCA of CPO
in PT Perkebunan Nusantara XIII, Indonesia, the total energy consumption was 8.652 MJ/kg CPO, while in this
study only 3.42-3.75 MJ of energy needed to produce 1 kg CPO.If the CPO converted to biodiesel, the needed
energy increases to 11.53-11.86 MJ/kg biodiesel. It should be noted that the main electricity of the mill P is provided
by biogas.
It is assumed that the CPO will be converted to biofuel. The biofuel is assumed to have low heating value (LHV)
of 36.5 MJ/kg biodiesel. Therefore, the energy output from biodiesel was 480.46 GJ/ha (2014) and decreased to
450.79 GJ/ha (2015) due to decreased CPO produced in the palm oil mill. Surplus energy from biogas was 1.155
MJ/kg bodieselor 15.21 GJ/ha (2014) and 1.099 MJ/kg biodiesel or 13.57 GJ/ha (2015).
In the hectare basis, the NEP was 494.56 GJ/ha and decreased to 317.84 GJ/ha. Meanwhile, the NER decreased
from 3.27 (2014) to 3.17 (2015). According to Harsono et al [26], the range of NEP in Indonesia was 108.47 –
207.93 GJ/ha, in which the company plantation in Sumatra had the highest NEPand NER. At the same time,
Kamahara et al. [9] stated that the NEP and NER in a company in Lampung Province was 98 GJ/ha and 3.1,
respectively. It should be noted that in the mill P, PT X, the POME is treated to produce biogas that eventually
generates electricity. This mill is not using electricity from the grid at all, and even there is electricity surplus from
the biogas. Therefore, it is clear that NEP in this mill is significantly higher than other related studies of similar palm
oil production system in other companies.

Greenhouse Gases Emission

The results of the greenhouse gases emission calculation for oil palm estate can be seen Table 4. In this case, the
emission of the activities in the palm estate increased from 12.50 kgCO2eq/ton FFB to 22.057 kgCO2eq/ton FFB.
According to Table 4, the largest emission in the palm estate was came from urea consumption as a fertilizer. The
urea consumption also increased from 5.978 kgCO2eq/ton FFB in 2014 to 11.211 kgCO2eq/ton FFB in 2015. The
company maximized the use of urea due to decreasing FFB production in 2014.
The detailed emissions calculation results from each activity in palm oil mill are depicted in Table 5. In the palm
oil mill, the emission was decreased from 2,509.93 kgCO2eq/ton CPO to 2,057.14 kgCO2eq/ton CPO. Due to FFB
yield decreased, the emission in the mill decreased as well. Incineration of empty fruit bunch (EFB) emitted the
largest emission of greenhouse gases in this case (1,513.22 – 1,083.86 kgCO2eq/ton CPO). Although the emission in
palm estate increased, the amount of emission was still far below the emission from the mill. However, the land-use
change or conversion was not calculated.

020064-6
 TABLE 3. Energy input per activity
Process Input Unit Energy Input in 2014 Energy Input in 2015

Urea (CH4N2O) MJ/kg biodiesel

0.289947 0.540938
Triple Super
MJ/kg biodiesel
Phosphate (P2O5) 0.003520 0.002125
Oil Palm Estate
Kieserite (Mg) MJ/kg biodiesel
(Mill P) 0.004429 0.004231

Dolomite (Mg, Ca) MJ/kg biodiesel

0.000159 0.003956

Herbicides MJ/kg biodiesel

0.002758 0.003764
Diesel fuel
MJ/kg biodiesel
Consumption 0.066302 0.119011

Electricity MJ/kg biodiesel

2.311651 2.397399

NaOH MJ/kg biodiesel

0.000235 0.000403

Fosfat MJ/kg biodiesel

0.000190 0.000229
Palm Oil Mill
Sulfit MJ/kg biodiesel
(Mill P) 0.000001 0.000001

Alum MJ/kg biodiesel

0.098327 0.083269

HCl MJ/kg biodiesel -

-

Sodium Karbonat MJ/kg biodiesel

0.001884 0.001365

CaCO3 MJ/kg biodiesel

0.117622 0.124366
Diesel fuel
consumption from MJ/kg biodiesel
0.049004 0.054596
Estate to Mill
Transportation
Diesel fuel
consumption from MJ/kg biodiesel
0.471629 0.418063
Mill to Bulking
Electricity MJ/kg biodiesel
3.211000 3.211000
Methanol
Biodiesel* MJ/kg biodiesel
production 0.378000 0.378000
Feedstock of
MJ/kg biodiesel
methanol 4.521000 4.521000
Total Energy Input
11.53 11.86

If compared to Al Hakim’s study[25], the emission of the crude palm oil production system in Mill P, PT X are
still lower than those of PT Perkebunan Nusantara XII, Indonesia, i.e. 172.41 kgCO2eq in palm estate and 1,296.1
kgCO2eq in palm oil mill. According to Harsono et al [26], the palm estate could have high emission of greenhouse
gases if the land-use change (LUC) impact was calculated. The emission from the oil palm plantation was 5626.43
kgCO2eq including LUC emission. The similar study in Thailand [17] showed that the emission of activities in palm
plantation was 57 kgCO2eq/ton/yr FFB while in palm oil mill was 2,332 kgCO2eq/ton CPO/yr. In Thailand, the
crude palm oil production system was still applying chemical fertilizer and herbicide frequently. Furthermore, the
EFBs were not treated properly in an open dumping [17]. From those comparisons, it is clear that this company
relatively manage the emission properly, but, of course, the process could be more optimized, i.e. composting of

020064-7
EFB as the alternative processing for EFB. Hence, the emission from EFB incineration could be omitted. Although
the composting process also emits greenhouse gas emission, the emission factor is far below the incineration
process, i.e. the emission factor of composting is 0.1 kgCO2eq/kg [27] while those of biomass incineration is 1.19
kgCO2eq/kg [20].
TABLE 4. Greenhouse gases emission from oil palm estate
2014 2015
GHG
Source Emission GHG Emission
Activity level (unit Activity level (unit
(kgCO2eq (kgCO2eq per
per 1 ton FFB) per 1 ton FFB)
per ton ton FFB)
FFB)
Oil Palm Estate CO2

Urea Fertilizer (kg N) 0.73085 2.41910 1.37048 4.53628

N Fertilizer (kg N) 0.02518 0.14807 0.06755 0.39722

P2O5 Fertilizer (kg P2O5) 0.29136 0.29448 1.02337 1.03432

MgO Fertilizer (kg MgO) 0.18271 0.19530 1.05827 1.13119

K2O Fertilizer (kg K2O) 2.38839 1.36138 2.29368 1.30740

CaO Fertilizer (kg CaO) 0.02307 0.00299 0.57868 0.07494

Borite Fertilizer (kg B2O3) 0.03788 0.00322 0.09296 0.00791

ZnSO4 Fertilizer (kg ZnSO4) 0.02518 0.05030 0.06755 0.13495

CuSO4Fertilizer (kg CuSO4) 0.02042 0.04080 0.04514 0.09019

MgSO4Fertilizer (kg MgSO4) 0.22019 0.07035 0.34120 0.10901

Herbicide, pesticide, rodenticide 0.00611 0.06700 0.00759 0.08331

N2O

Urea Fertilizer (kg N) 0.73085 3.55922 1.37048 6.67422

N Fertilizer (kg N) 0.02518 0.12262 0.06755 0.32896

Biochar from EFB 0.00476 0.02318 - -

Land Application 0.49691 2.41996 0.00413 0.02010

Diesel fuelconsumption in Estate 0.33 1.05 0.344 1.080

Avtur consumption for fertilizing 0.03 0.09 0.108 0.340

Total Emission from FFB
Production - 11.91 - 17.350

Diesel fuel consumption for

Transportation 0.19 0.59 1.499 4.707
Total Emission from Oil Palm
Estate 12.50 22.057

020064-8
 TABLE 5. Greenhouse gases emission in Palm Oil Mill
2014 2015

Source GHG Emission GHG Emission

Activity level Activity level
(kgCO2eq per (kgCO2eq per
(unit per 1 ton CPO) (unit per 1 ton CPO)
ton CPO) ton CPO)

Palm Oil Mill

Energy production from shell &
fiber 810.73 964.77 791.54 941.94
EFB incineration
1,271.62 1,513.22 910.80 1,083.86
Diesel fuel consumption
1.05 3.31 1.89 5.94
Total Emission from energy
consumption & production - 2,481.30 - 2,031.73

NaOH consumption 0.0089 0.0042 0.0153 0.0072

Phosphate consumption 0.0083 0.0248 0.0099 0.0299

Sulphide consumption 0.0084 0.0125 0.0116 0.0174

HCl consumption
- - 0.0790 0.0593

Alum consumption 0.3506 0.1848 0.2969 0.1565

Sodium carbonate consumption 0.2553 0.3038 0.1849 0.2201

CaCO3 Consumption 4.9401 0.1017 5.2234 0.1075

Total emission from chemical
substances consumption - 0.63 - 0.60
Total Emission of mill operation
- 2,481.93 - 2,032.32

Diesel fuel transportation

8.92 28.00 7.90 24.82

Total Emission of the palm oil mill - 2,509.93 - 2,057.14

CONCLUSIONS
The energy output from biodiesel was 480.46 GJ/ha (2014) and decreased to 450.79 GJ/ha (2015) due to
decreased CPO produced in the palm oil mill. Surplus energy from biogas was 1.155 MJ/kg bodiesel or 15.21 GJ/ha
(2014) and 1.099 MJ/kg biodiesel or 13.57 GJ/ha (2015). In the hectare basis, the NEP was 494.56 GJ/ha and
decreased to 317.84 GJ/ha. Meanwhile, the NER decreased from 3.27 (2014) to 3.17 (2015). The NEP in this mill is
significantly higher than other related studies of similar palm oil production system in other companies.
The emission of the activities in the palm estate increased from 12.50 kgCO2eq/ton FFB to 22.057 kgCO2eq/ton
FFB. In the palm oil mill, the emission decreased from 2,509.93 kgCO2eq/ton CPO to 2,057.14 kgCO2eq/ton CPO.
Mill P of PT X, relatively manages the emission properly mainly because the waste was treated and the POME was
converted to biogas for electricity. However, the process could be more optimized, i.e. composting of EFB as the
alternative processing for EFB, because the emission from EFB incineration was the highest of those in the mill
activities (1,0831.86 - 1,513.22 kgCO2eq/ton CPO/yr).

020064-9
 REFERENCES
1. Directorate General of Estate Crops,Statistics of Estates in Indonesia 2013-2015(Directorate General of Estate
Crops, Jakarta, 2014).
2. GAPKI (GabunganPengusahaKelapaSawit Indonesia), “Reflection of Palm Oil Industry 2015 and its Prospect
in 2016,” Pers Conference GAPKI. http://www.gapki.or.id/Page/PressReleaseDetail?guid=39f6f3f2-0419-
42d4-8d1b-9524871d3cf2,accessed on April 20, 2016.
3. W. F. Laurance, L. P. Koh, R. Butler andN. S. Sodhi, Conserv. Biol.24, 377-381 (2010).
4. C. M. Yule, Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 393-409 (2010).
5. A. Hidayatno, T. Y. M. Zagloel, W. W. Purwanto, Carissa andL. Anggraini, Makara Journal of Technology15,
1, 9-16 (2011).
6. N. Nazir and D. Setyaningsih, “Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from palm oil and Jatropha oil in
Indonesia,”in Biomass as Sustainable Energy, 7thBiomass Asia Workshop Proceedings(BPPT, Jakarta, 2010).
7. R. Aryapratama, “A Review on Life Cycle and Water Footprint Assessment of Biofuels: Towards Sustainable
Environment, Water, and Energy Security of Indonesia,”in Empowering National Pride with Knowledge
Collaboration, Conference Proceeding of The 6th Conference of Indonesian Students Association in Korea –
CISAK(Indonesian Students Association in Korea, Daejeon, 2013).
8. E. E. Y. Angarita, E. Lora, R. E. Da Costa and E. A. Torres, Renew. Energ.34,12, 2905-2913(2009).
9. H. Kamahara, U. Hasanudin, A. Widiyanto, R. Tachibana, Y. Atsuta, N. Goto, H. Daimon and K.Fujie,
Biomass Bioenerg.34, 1818-1824 (2010).
10. F. C. Boswell, J. J.Meisinger and N. L. Case, “Production, marketing, and use of nitrogen fertilizers,” in
Fertilizer technology and use, edited byO. P. Engelstad (Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, Wisconsin, 1985), pp.
229-292.
11. M. S. Mudahar and T. P. Hignett, “Energy in plant nutrition and pest control,” inEnergy requirements,
technology, and resources in fertilizer sector. Ch. 2, Energy in world agriculture, vol. 2, edited by Z. R. Hesel
(Elsivier, Amsterdam, 1987), pp. 25-61.
12. Petroleum Energy Center, Report for making LCI of petroleum product by each oil type and environmental
impact assessment of petroleum product, 2000 [in Japanese].
13. A. Widiyanto, S. Kato, N. Maruyama, A. Nishimura and S.Sampattagul, “Environmental impacts evaluation
ofelectricity grid mix systems in four selected countries using a life cycle assessment point of view,”in
Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, IEEE Conference Proceedings Cat.
No.03EX895 (IEEE, Tokyo), pp. 26-33.
14. L. O. Williams, An End to Global Warming,(PERGAMON An Imprint Elsevier Science, UK, 2002).
15. J. A. S. Green, Aluminum Recycling and Processing for Energy Conservation and Sustainability(ASM
International, Ohio, 2007).
16. W. J. Rankin, Minerals, Metals and Sustainability: Meeting Future Material Needs (CSIRO Publishing,
Netherlands, 2011).
17. Weingaertner, The Extractive Crystallization of Sodium Chloride and Sodium Carbonate(University of
California, Berkeley, 1988).
18. A. V. Bridgwater, Developments in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion: Volume 2. Chemical Engineering
and Applied Chemistry (Aston University, Birmingham UK, 1998).
19. K. Saswattecha, C.Kroeze, W. Jawjit andL. Hein, J. Clean. Prod.100, 150-169 (2015).
20. J. H. Schmidt, “Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil,” Summary Report, Department of
Development and Planning, Aalborg University, 2007.
21. ISCC emission factors, ISCC 11-03-15, V 2.3-EU.
22. Ecoinvent, The ecoinvent Database Version 2.2 [WWW Document].Ecoinvent Assoc. URL.
http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/ accessed on Sep 28, 2016.
23. K. F. Yee, K. T. Tan, A. Z. Abdullah and K. T. Lee, Appl. Energ.86, 189–196 (2009).
24. A. Sugiyono, “Possibility of palm oil derived biodiesel as diesel fuel substitusion in Indonesia,” in Prospect of
Biofuel Development as Fuel, edited by H. S. Suharyonoand A. Nurrohim (BPPT, Jakarta, 2010), pp 29-39 [in
Indonesian Language].

020064-10
25. H. M. Al-Hakim, “Life cycle assessment (LCA) of crude palm oil (CPO) of plantation and mill in Plaihari PT
Perkebunan Nusantara XIII,” Thesis, University of GadjahMada, 2013 [in Indonesian Language].
26. S. S. Harsono, A. Prochnow, P. Grundmann, A. Hansen and C. Hallmann, GCB Bioenergy 4, 213-228 (2012).
27. S. Bellon and S. Penvern, Organic Farming, Prototype for Sustainable Agriculture(Springer, London, 2014).

020064-11