Applied Energy 164 (2016) 756–768

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Energy and GHG balances of ethanol production from cane molasses

in Indonesia
Dilip Khatiwada a,⇑, Bharadwaj K. Venkata b, Semida Silveira a, Francis X. Johnson c
a
Division of Energy and Climate Studies, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvägen 68, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
b
World Bioenergy Association, Holländargatan 17, 111 60 Stockholm, Sweden
c
Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) Africa Centre, c/o ICRAF, United Nations Avenue, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya

h i g h l i g h t s

This study performs LCA analysis of sugarcane-based bioethanol production.

Energy and GHG balances are evaluated in the entire production chain.

Sensitivity analysis is performed to identify key influencing parameters.

Efficient cogeneration and biogas recovery enhances energy and climate gains.

Results of LCA studies and issues related to land use change impact are discussed.

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

Article history: This study analyses the sustainability of fuel ethanol production from cane molasses in Indonesia. Life
Received 10 August 2015 cycle assessment (LCA) is performed to evaluate the net emissions (climate change impact) and energy
Received in revised form 25 October 2015 inputs (resource consumption) in the production chain. The lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
Accepted 26 November 2015
in the production and use of ethanol are estimated at 29 gCO2eq per MJ of ethanol produced which is a
67% reduction in comparison to gasoline emissions. Net Energy Value (NEV) and Net Renewable
Energy Value (NREV) are 7 MJ/l and 17.7 MJ/l, while the energy yield ratio (ER) is 6.1. Economic alloca-
Keywords:
tion is chosen for dividing environmental burdens and resource consumption between sugar (i.e. main
Life cycle assessment
GHG emissions
product) and molasses (i.e. co-product used for fuel production). Sensitivity analysis of various parame-
Net energy values ters is performed. The emissions and energy values are highly sensitive to sugarcane yield, ethanol yield,
and the price of molasses. The use of sugarcane biomass residues (bagasse/trash) for efficient cogenera-
tion, and different waste management options for the treatment of spent wash (effluent of distilleries) are
also explored. Surplus bioelectricity generation in the efficient cogeneration plant, biogas recovery from
wastewater treatment plant, and their use for fossil fuel substitution can help improve energy and envi-
ronmental gains. The study also compares important results with other relevant international studies and
discusses issues related to land use change (LUC) impact.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction decade to include climate change, agricultural innovation, and

Biofuels account for 3% of transport energy globally, although
the share is considerably higher in certain countries such as Brazil
and the U.S. [1,2]. Although promotion of biofuels has historically
been tied to rising oil prices, the rationale for biofuels – in devel-
oped and developing countries alike – has broadened in the past
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 8 790 7464.
E-mail addresses: dilip.khatiwada@energy.kth.se (D. Khatiwada), bharadwaj.v.
kummamuru@worldbioenergy.org (B.K. Venkata), semida.silveira@energy.kth.se
(S. Silveira), francis.johnson@sei-international.org (F.X. Johnson).
rural development [3]. Many countries have promoted biofuels as
a way to address both long-term energy security and a greener
economic base; the pioneering Brazilian example of bioethanol in
particular has encouraged interest in various developing and
emerging economies [4,5]. At the same time, sustainability con-
cerns over land and water arise due to the resource-intensive nat-
ure of biofuels. Consequently, more detailed analysis on the
environmental impacts of biofuels supports a sounder evidence
base for designing policies and support mechanisms.
Among emerging economies, Indonesia offers a useful case for
analysing the role of different types of biofuels in contributing to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.032
0306-2619/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 D. Khatiwada et al. / Applied Energy 164 (2016) 756–768
more sustainable energy pathways. Indonesia has undergone rapid
economic growth and development, with total primary energy
consumption increasing by 44% between 2002 and 2012 [6].
Indonesia is endowed with significant natural resources: it is the
world’s largest exporter of palm oil and coal. The country also
has oil reserves but surging demand turned Indonesia into a net
importer of crude oil since 2003, with crude oil import reaching
32% of total demand by 2013 [7]. Between 1980 and 2010, total
energy consumption increased almost five times while primary
energy production grew by only 2.8 times [8]. If the current trend
of high consumption persists without phasing in alternative energy
sources, Indonesia will become an overall net-energy importer by
2030 [9].
In 2013, fossil fuels (i.e. oil, coal and natural gas) accounted for
almost 75% of Indonesia’s total energy use of 9.5 EJ, with the
remainder consisting of renewables including hydropower,
geothermal, and biomass/biofuel [10]. The transport sector
accounts for one quarter of the energy, including 26.3 billion litres
of gasoline and 18.6 billion litres of diesel [11]. The transport sector
contributes 20% of the total GHG emissions from the energy sector
[12]. Transport fuel use is projected to nearly double by 2025 [10].
The need to reduce GHG emissions, energy security issues, and a
negative trade balance are major reasons to explore alternative
fuels. Biofuels also offer significant socio-economic benefits,
including employment generation, rural development and poverty
alleviation [13–15]. Indonesia already has considerable experience
with two key biofuel feedstocks: oil palm (for biodiesel) and sugar-
cane (for bioethanol) although sugarcane yields have suffered due
to lack of investment [16]. Fossil fuel subsidies have hindered the
deployment of renewable fuels in the past, but recent reforms
and subsidy reductions have increased the prospects for biofuels
[6,17].
The government of Indonesia has enacted a national energy pol-
icy (presidential regulation no. 5/2006) with targets for a diversi-
fied energy mix, including 5% minimum share of biofuel in the
total national energy consumption by 2025. The share of biofuels
in the primary energy supply mix of Indonesia was negligible
(0.19%) in 2011 [18]. In 2014, the government issued a new policy
(presidential regulation no. 20/2014) on mandatory biofuel’s tar-
gets. Fuel ethanol blending should fulfil 20% of transportation sec-
tor fuel needs by 2025. However, despite the new regulations and
road map for biofuels development, economic incentives are not
properly set for bioethanol production [16]. This stands in contrast
with biodiesel that contributed 5.6% of the total diesel consump-
tion in the transportation sector in 2013 compared to a negligible
share of 0.6% in 2006 [19].
Sugarcane molasses, a low value co-product of sugar mills that
is used in many countries for ethanol production, offers a viable
alternative. Indonesia is one of the top ten sugarcane producers
in the world, producing 29 million tonnes of sugarcane on
0.41 Million hectares (Mha) of land in 2012 [20]. However, as with
oil, sugar demand has far outpaced supply, making Indonesia a
major sugar importer despite its stated goal to reach sugar
self-sufficiency by 2014 [21]. Renewed investment in the sugar-
cane sector can address the trade deficit in sugar as well as petro-
leum, contributing to agricultural revitalisation as well as energy
security and sustainability. The sugarcane sector has special appeal
for developing and emerging economies for such reasons [22].
However, it is essential to analyse the sustainability of the path-
way of bioethanol production from cane molasses in Indonesia. For
that purpose, lifecycle assessment (LCA) is a widely accepted
approach. Detailed LCAs for sugarcane ethanol in Indonesia
are not available in the international scientific literature and this
paper aims to fill that gap. In this paper, we evaluate the energy
consumption, i.e. energy inputs for ethanol production (energy
balance) and lifecycle GHG emissions (GHG balance), also
757
considering alternative management options for optimization of
the process chain. This LCA study and sustainability assessment
of sugarcane-based molasses ethanol can support decision makers
in implementing biofuels policy in Indonesia. We also consider the
sustainability implications of land use change (LUC), which may
occur due to sugarcane expansion. This study also aims to con-
tribute to the international debate on the sustainability assessment
of biofuel production, considering Indonesian conditions. The anal-
ysis provided here is relevant for many developing countries that
have abundant potential to produce biofuels and especially
bioethanol.
Following this introduction, Section 2 explains the methodolog-
ical approach applied to evaluate the sustainability of molasses-
based ethanol in Indonesia. A discussion of the system boundaries
and lifecycle assessment framework as well as the data sources
used is presented in Section 3. Section 4 shows the main results
for lifecycle energy and GHG balances, including sensitivity analy-
sis and scenario development. Section 5 summarizes the conclu-
sions of the study.
2. Methodological approach
Due to the special emphasis on energy and climate change in
implementing biofuels policies, in this study, we focus on two
impact categories – resource utilization (i.e. consumption of fossil
and other natural sources or bio-resources) and climate change
impact. We use Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which is a well-
developed scientific approach for evaluating the sustainability of
products and/or services [23]. However, there are variations within
LCA analysis with regards to the selection of environmental impact
categories, definition of system boundaries, functional units, and
allocation methods. As mentioned by Stichnothe and Azapagic
[24], the results vary depending on the functional unit. Similarly,
Gnansounou et al. [25] pointed out the influence of system defini-
tions and boundaries, functional units, and allocation methodolo-
gies in the LCA of bioenergy systems. Singh et al. [26] discuss the
importance of LCA for renewable energy sources, including its
application to bioenergy systems.
Both climate change impacts as well as resource utilization can
be analysed using LCA. The methodology has been previously
applied in various studies related to bioethanol. Stephenson et al.
have performed a LCA to investigate the environmental and eco-
nomic aspects of producing bioethanol from coppice willow [27].
LCA analysis has also been performed using various other biomass
feedstocks including sugar beet in Greece [28], wheat in France
[29], sweet potato in China [30], and sugarcane in Mexico, Brazil
and Nepal [31–33]. Ebner et al. conducted a LCA analysis on waste
to ethanol conversion along with production of co-products of
compost and animal feed [34].
Several LCA studies have been conducted to evaluate the sus-
tainability of sugarcane-based bioethanol production. One of the
earliest LCA analyses of sugarcane to ethanol was performed in
Brazil [35]. Khatiwada and Silveira have recently estimated the
net energy and GHG balance of molasses based ethanol in Nepal
[33,36]. Studies on the net energy analysis and GHG balances have
also been performed in Brazil [32] and Mexico [31], among others.
Recently, Silalertruksa et al. performed LCA to evaluate environ-
mental indicators (i.e. greenhouse gas emissions) of sugarcane
biorefinery and molases ethanol production in Thailand [37]. Von
Blottnitz and Curran find that ethanol made from sugarcane in
tropical countries is sustainable and that the use of sugar crops
for bioethanol production is highly efficient from a land use per-
spective compared to other alternatives [38].
The production of biofuel from energy crops has led to a lengthy
debate on land use competition and the issue of food vs. fuel
[39,40]. Concerns may arise when sugarcane expansion occurs,
758 D. Khatiwada et al. / Applied Energy 164 (2016) 756–768
leading to both direct land use change (dLUC) and indirect land use
change (iLUC). Direct land use change (dLUC) occurs through land
conversion (e.g. from grassland, forest, other crops) to sugarcane
field for sugar and/or ethanol production. For the conversion of
cane molasses to ethanol, there is no significant dLUC as molasses
is a by-product. However, indirect land use change (iLUC) may
occur when molasses is used for ethanol production instead of
being used for food additive and animal feed, where such markets
exist. Therefore, this study also includes an indicative share of
dLUC emissions for molasses ethanol, using the representative case
when grassland is converted to sugarcane. The net dLUC emissions
from before and after land use change consider the change in car-
bon stocks in biomass (above-ground and below-ground) and soil
carbon stock. dLUC emissions are easier to quantify when land
use type, climatic conditions, soil type, cropping systems/manage-
ment practices are known whereas iLUC is complex and requires
extensive information and assumptions about the products and/
or feeds substituting the uses of molasses. There is no scientific
consensus yet on the methodology to evaluate iLUC [41–43].
Therefore, iLUC emissions are beyond the scope of this analysis.
2.1. LCA framework in this study
In this study, the LCA analysis is used to identify the impacts of
net resource consumption and climate change on the production
and use of molasses-based ethanol. The resource consumption
and climate change impacts measured in terms of energy utiliza-
tion (including fossil and biomass) and GHG emissions during
the production/cultivation of raw material/feedstock, transport,
processing, conversion and end use are considered, thus enabling
a cradle-to-grave analysis. The material and energy inputs such
as fertilizers, chemicals, electricity, and corresponding environ-
mental impacts are also considered. In order to estimate the lifecy-
cle emissions and energy consumption during the whole
production chain, we have considered the following indirect
energy, material, and emissions flows: energy consumption during
production of fuels, materials and GHG emissions during the pro-
duction, and use/application of energy/material inputs. In addition,
alternative scenarios – biogas recovery and excess electricity to the
grid – for optimal utilization of bio-resources are developed. Fig. 1
describes the energy and material flows in the agricultural prac-
tices and cane milling operations in Indonesia.
2.2. Functional unit and LCA metrics
A functional unit quantifies the performance of services or
products being delivered by a system, and it allows comparisons
between the products under consideration. In this study, we mea-
sure lifecycle energy and GHG balances per unit energy output, i.e.
(MJ/MJethanol) and gCO2eq/MJethanol, respectively. Energy and emis-
sions per unit of land (per hectare) and per tonne of cane processed
are also presented. The lifecycle emissions are compared with con-
ventional gasoline (energy equivalence), i.e. 1 GJ of bioethanol sub-
stitutes the same amount of gasoline. Note that the relation for
volumetric equivalency between pure gasoline and anhydrous
ethanol (99.5% v/v, EtOH) is 1 m3 ethanol = 0.66 m3 gasoline.
The percentage of avoided emissions can be calculated as:
Avoided emissions
GHG emissions of gasoline  GHG emissions of bioethanol
¼  100% ½33
GHG emissions of gasoline
ð1Þ
The energy inputs, both renewable and non-renewable fuels,
required for producing one unit of fuel ethanol are considered.
The energy balance is measured and reported in net energy value
(NEV), net renewable energy value (NREV), and energy ratio (ER).
The net energy value (NEV) of bioethanol is the difference
between the energy content of the bioethanol produced and the
total primary energy inputs (fossil plus renewable) in the entire
biofuel production chain.
NEV ¼ Eo  Ei ½36 ð2Þ
where Eo is LHV (low heating value) of fuel ethanol obtained from
the process and Ei is the total primary energy input in the process.
A positive NEV implies more energy is extracted from the fuel than
is consumed during the production of the fuel.
NREV is similar to NEV. The major difference is that only fossil
fuel consumption is considered as input. A positive NREV implies
more energy is extracted from the fuel than the amount of fossil
energy consumed.
NREV ¼ Eo  Efi ½36 ð3Þ
where Efi is fossil energy input to the process.
ER is the ratio of LHV of ethanol to the fossil energy required to
produce it.
Eo
ER ¼ ½36 ð4Þ
Efi
2.3. Allocation procedure and scenario development
Sugar, molasses and bagasse are the three main products in
sugar industries. Final molasses (C grade molasses) is a co-
product of sugarcane processing. It is a residual product from
which no more sugar can be obtained. At the same time, it is an
important feedstock for ethanol production. Bagasse (fibrous resid-
ual biomass) can be combusted to generate heat and power in boil-
ers, which can either be used in the plant or sold to other users.
While performing the LCA, the emissions and energy consump-
tion are allocated to the multiple products resulting from the pro-
cess as recommended by ISO [44,45]. In this case, the bagasse is
consumed internally for energy generation and use in the opera-
tion of the plant. Therefore, only allocation of sugar and molasses
is performed.
There are three major allocation methods – mass or energy allo-
cation, economic allocation, and allocation by substitution or sys-
tem expansion method. Mass allocation uses the quantities of
products whereas energy allocation utilizes the lower heating
value (LHV) of each product. A disadvantage of mass allocation is
that it does not distinguish between products and, in this case,
the sugar content in both sugar and molasses varies significantly.
A similar argument holds for energy allocation since the purpose
of the products is different, i.e. food (sugar) and fuel (molasses to
ethanol) [33]. It is rather difficult to use the method of system
expansion for allocation of resources without knowing the poten-
tial uses for molasses. If molasses is used to produce ethanol,
which substance will replace molasses in other applications? In
face of the uncertainties, recent studies have recommended to
avoid this allocation methodology [33,46].
Economic allocation has been used in LCA of cane molasses to
ethanol [33,46,47]. This methodology uses the market prices of
co-products (i.e. sugar and molasses) as parameters to partition
the resource consumption and environmental burdens. Since
molasses is a low value waste product, such an allocation method-
ology would encourage its use for indigenous ethanol production.
More importantly, economic allocation helps identify the most
economically viable option on the use of co-products and also
inform decision makers about the economic implications of
devised policy [33,47]
However, if the sugar factory owners try to produce more
molasses (i.e. A or B grade molasses) for ethanol production and
 D. Khatiwada et al. / Applied Energy 164 (2016) 756–768
Fig. 1. A schematic layout on material and energy flows in molasses-bioethanol production chain (adopted from Ref. [33] with adjustments for the case of Indonesia).
less sugar, it may lead to changes in the demand for these products
(i.e. sugar and molasses) and also their market prices. This can
increase the allocation towards molasses to ethanol pathway
leading to higher energy consumption and emissions. Hence, the
relative prices and the associated accounting can be seen as regu-
lating the type and quantity of molasses that is on demand. In this
study, we chose economic allocation as the primary allocation
methodology to partition the resource consumption (i.e. energy
inputs) and environmental impact (i.e. GHG emissions) from the
upstream operations (i.e. sugarcane farming and milling). Table 1
provides yields and prices used to determine the allocation
ratio for sugar and molasses. A sensitivity analysis has been per-
formed to evaluate energy and GHG balances in different allocation
ratios.
The input data used in the LCA analysis is based on the average
values of the sixty mills operating in Indonesia. It is important to
perform a sensitivity analysis considering a whole range of mini-
mum and maximum values of the parameters as appeared in all
sugar mills. The effects of changing the main influencing physical
and process parameters such as cane yield, fertilizer inputs, price
of molasses, and waste management options are therefore simu-
lated in the analysis.
This study investigates different scenarios in search for the
optimal utilization of bio-resources and co-products (see Fig. 1).
At present, bagasse cogeneration plants for heat and power
generation are not very efficient in Indonesia due to the use of
Table 1
Allocation ratio calculation.
Yield (t/tc)a Price (IDR/kg)b Allocation ratioc
Sugar Molasses Sugar Molasses
Economic 0.074 0.05 12,000 1250 14.67
a
Sugarcane yield: 78.15 t/ha.
b
Based on field trip information and interviews (in February 2013).
c
Allocation ratio = (yield of sugar ⁄ price of sugar)/(yield of molasses ⁄ price of
molasses).
759
conventional back-pressure steam turbine cogeneration systems
at low levels of pressure and temperature (22 bar/300 °C). The
use of high pressure boilers and efficient turbines can help to
increase cogeneration power in the form of electricity [48]. Thus,
there is a huge potential for generation of surplus electricity for
sale to the grid if bagasse cogeneration plants are made more effi-
cient. As electricity generation in Indonesia is highly dominated by
carbon-intensive fossil fuels, the amount of avoided emissions
from the replacement of fossil based electricity would be worth-
investigating. Biogas recovery and/or leakage from the treatment
of effluents (waste water or spent wash) obtained from ethanol
conversion are of great concern for energy and GHG balances of
ethanol production [33,47,49,50] Therefore, this study also
includes an assessment on the role of two common effluent treat-
ment processes, viz. anaerobic treatment (AD) plant and oxidation
ponds (OP) in terms of net energy and GHG savings at the plant
level.
3. System boundary and data sources
The information about the sugarcane cultivation, factory opera-
tions, and ethanol conversion was obtained from interviews con-
ducted with researchers, industry owners, farmers, and literature
gathered during a field trip in Indonesia in 2013. An overview of
sugarcane bioenergy systems and data sources on material and
energy flows are described in the following sub-sections, along
with the respective energy and GHG emission factors or
coefficients.
3.1. Overview of sugarcane energy system
The supply chain for production and use of bioethanol can be
subdivided into sugarcane cultivation, sugarcane milling, ethanol
production, transportation and ethanol combustion (see Fig. 1).
Sugarcane cultivation starts with preparing the field followed by
seed plantation, irrigation, fertilizer & herbicide application and
760 D. Khatiwada et al. / Applied Energy 164 (2016) 756–768

ends with harvesting. In Indonesia, the cane harvesting season is The energy and emission coefficients for cane cultivation are
between May and October. According to the interviews conducted, used from various literature studies as shown in Table 4.
there is no diesel consumption in the cultivation stage and harvest-
ing is performed manually. Cane trash – the solid residue left after 3.3. Sugarcane milling
cane harvesting that is usually composed of dry leaves and tops – is
presently left in the fields. Material (chemicals) and energy (fuel and electricity) required
After harvesting, the sugarcane is transported to the cane for the milling and sugar production processes are provided in
mill. The cane is initially crushed to separate the solid bagasse Table 5. Besides bagasse which is a main energy input, coal and
from the cane pulp. Bagasse is a co-product of the cane milling grid electricity are also used to provide energy for the milling pro-
process and is utilized within the mill to generate heat (steam) cess. As mentioned previously, molasses and bagasse are the main
and electricity. Coal is also used along with bagasse for energy co-products in the milling process. Fig. 1 also depicts the energy
generation compensating for inefficient cogeneration that (steam and power) flows in a typical sugarcane mill and distillery
uses low pressure and temperature boilers and turbines (see in Indonesia. Note that sugar mills still use coal for energy produc-
Fig. 1). tion in cogeneration plants, which has highly negative implications
The cane pulp is initially passed through strainers to remove for GHG emissions.
solid impurities. The liquid is then clarified using sulphuric acid The emission and energy coefficients for sugarcane milling are
in a rotary drum during which filter cake is obtained as a by- extracted from the literature as indicated in Table 6.
product. Filter cake is separated from the clarified juice using fil-
ter screens and is applied back in sugarcane fields. The clarified 3.4. Ethanol production and use
cane juice is sterilized and the pH is adjusted. It is then passed
through evaporators to remove additional water and to obtain Chemicals, steam and electricity are the major inputs during
80% (w/w) concentrated cane syrup. This is followed by crystal- ethanol production (Table 7). Fig. 2 shows sugarcane input and
lization of the syrup at vacuum pressure in vacuum pans to derived material products/outputs in the production chain of etha-
obtain raw sugar crystals as main product with additional leftover nol production. As seen in the figure, 3.67 kg of molasses is
syrup. The procedure is repeated a few more times until no required to produce 1 l of ethanol, also generating 13 l of waste
more crystals can be obtained. These raw crystals are then water or spent wash. The combustion of ethanol leads to emissions
treated to obtain the final refined product. The end syrup after of 25 gCO2eq/l [33].
multiple-crystallization is what is called molasses, which can The emission and energy coefficients for the production of
then be used as feedstock for fuel ethanol production. Table 2 chemicals are obtained from the literature and presented in
shows the cane components/products during the milling Table 8.
operations.
The obtained sugar crystals are packed and transported for dis- 3.5. Transport
tribution. Filter cake, and waste water (spent wash or stillage) are
the major by-products. The co-product molasses obtained is sent to Cane stalk is transported from the cane farm to the sugar
an annexed ethanol distillery, and pre-treated to obtain a concen- mill. Two modes of transport are used: diesel trucks with a
trated juice. Hydrolysis is performed with 4% (w/w) sulphuric acid capacity of 6.5 tonnes transporting 80% of the cane stalk whereas
(H2SO4) so as to make the product fermentable. Saccharomyces the rest is transported by railcar containers each with a capacity
cerevisiae (i.e. a type of yeast) is used to ferment the hydrolysed of 5 tonnes. The average distance travelled by the trucks is
molasses in a culture broth. This produces 7–10% ethanol by 30 km whereas the railcar transports cane for an average dis-
weight which is further distilled to obtain 96% pure ethanol (by tance of 12.5 km. Filter cake is transported from the mill to
volume), otherwise called hydrous ethanol. The by-product of dis- the farm to be used as fertilizer. Spent wash from ethanol pro-
tillation is spent wash or stillage. It is transported back to the farm duction is transported to the farm and used for irrigation and
for use in ferti-irrigation. fertilisation (ferti-irrigation) of fields. For the calculations, dis-
tance is considered as round trip. The fuel efficiency for different
modes of transport system measured in MJ/tonne-km (t km) is
3.2. Sugarcane harvesting presented in Table 9. Emission factors and energy coefficient
are given in Table 10.
The preparation of land, plantation, application of fertilizers/
chemicals, and harvesting are the major cultivation activities.
There is no diesel pumping – monsoon rains are enough to sustain Table 3
the crop for irrigation and harvesting [51]. The details of the sugar- Sugarcane cultivation data.
cane cultivation as obtained during the field trip are presented in Data Value Unit
Table 3. Nitrogen, phosphorous and potash are the primary fertiliz-
Cane yielda 78.15 t/ha
ers used along with herbicides. Cane seedsb 7.5 t/ha
Fertilizersc N, P, K 130, 72, kg/ha
72
c
Table 2 Herbicides Ametrin; 2,4 Dimethyl amine, 5 l/ha
Cane components during milling and their quantity. Source: Interviews and unpub- Diuron
d
lished literature study at Indonesian Sugarcane Research Institute, East Java during Human Labour Harvesting capacity 117 Man-day/
authors’ field visit. ha
Cane trash 50 %
Cane component Component quantity (%)
burnede
Bagasse 31 a
Cane yield is the average of all mills in Indonesia.
Bagasse moisture 50 b
Cane seeds data obtained from interviews.
Sugar crystals 7.4 c
Fertilizers N, P, K (Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potash) obtained from literature.
Molasses 4.8 d
Human labour: 1.5 man-day/t * 78.15 t/ha. Data from interviews.
Filter cake 3.6 e
It is assumed that 50% is burned and the rest is left to decompose for keeping
Cane trash (dry) 14
soil quality in the sugarcane field [68].
 D. Khatiwada et al. / Applied Energy 164 (2016) 756–768 761

Table 4
Emission and energy coefficients in the cane cultivation phase.

Particulars Emissions Energy

a
Nitrogen production 3.97 kgCO2eq/kg 56.30 MJ/kg
Phosphorous productiona 1.3 kgCO2eq/kg 7.50 MJ/kg
Potash productiona 0.71 kgCO2 eq/kg 7.0 MJ/kg
Herbicide productiona 25 kgCO2eq/kg 355.6 MJ/kg
N2O from nitrogen applicationb 7.76 kgCO2eq/kg –
N2O from filter cake applicationb 0.071 kgCO2eq/kg –
Cane trash burningb 0.088 kgCO2eq/kg –
Cane trash decompositionb 0.018 kgCO2eq/kg –
Sugarcane seeds productionc 1.6 kgCO2eq/tonne 0.02 MJ/kg
Human labour used 5.59 kgCO2eq/man-day 4286 MJ/ha

Energy (MJ/ha) = ((energy consumption per capita)/(GNP per capita)) ⁄ wages.

Energy consumption per capita: 33.6 GJ [69]. Fig. 2. Sugarcane to ethanol conversion chain (per litre of ethanol production).
Gross national product per capita: 18.3 million IDR [70]. Source: Jatiroto sugar mill, East Java, Indonesia.
Wages: 2.3 million IDR/ha (based on interviews).
Emissions (kgCO2eq/man-day) = emissions (kgCO2eq/man-day) from oil + coal
+ gas = energy consumption (MJ/ha) ⁄ share in primary energy mix (%) ⁄ emissions Table 8
(kgCO2eq/MJ). Emission and energy coefficients for inputs during ethanol production.
Share of primary energy mix: oil: 41%, coal: 23%, gas: 18% [18].
Emissions from energy sources (kgCO2eq/MJ): oil: 0.073, coal: 0.107, gas: 0.069 [71]. Emission coefficient Energy coefficient
a
Fertilizer and herbicide production values from the ERG Biofuel Analysis Meta- (kgCO2eq/kg) (MJ/kg)
Model (EBAMM) Software [72].
b
Sulphuric acid 0.21 0.11
Coefficients for N2O application and cane trash use, see Ref. [32].
c
production
Sugarcane seed production values from BioGrace software [73].
d
Urea 1.85 2.39
Human labour calculation: Life-style Support Energy (LSSE) system developed
Phosphoric acid 3.03 0.49
by Ref. [74] is utilized to calculate human labour inputs. The procedure is well
production
explained by Ref. [75] and has been adopted by researchers working on biofuel LCA
Yeast 0.49 17.56
analysis [33,57].
All values from Ref. [77] except urea emission coefficient [78] and yeast emission
coefficient [79].
Table 5
Material/chemical and energy inputs in sugarcane mills in Indonesia.

Data Value Unita 4. Results and discussion

Chemicals Sulphur 0.51 kg/tc
Lime 1 kg/tc Considering the environmental impact or GHG emissions from
Soda 0.05 kg/tc sugarcane farming/cultivation and cane transport, 53.2 kg of car-
Grid electricity 1.1 kWh/tc bon dioxide equivalent (kgCO2eq) per tonne-cane (tc) or
Fuel used Bagasse 2248 kJ/kg cane 4158 kgCO2eq is produced per hectare (ha) of sugarcane area. If
Coal 154 kJ/kg cane
we consider the resource consumption or energy inputs, 24.1 GJ
a
tc: Tonne cane. All values from the field trip. (of which 22.5 GJ are non-renewable and 1.6 GJ are renewable)
are consumed per hectare (ha) during sugarcane cultivation and
harvesting phase. It should be noted that these GHG emissions
Table 6
and energy values or inputs, which are mainly derived from feed-
Emission and energy coefficients for cane milling phase in Indonesia.
stock (i.e. sugarcane) production and transport, are not allocated
Emission coefficient Energy coefficient between co-products. Results of lifecycle GHG balances and energy
Lime production 0.07 kgCO2eq/kga 0.1 MJ/kgd analysis of molasses-based bioethanol are presented in Sections
Coal combustion 0.107 kgCO2eq/MJa – 4.1 and 4.2.
Bagasse combustion 0.025 kgCO2eq/kgb –
Grid electricity 0.726 kgCO2eq/kWhc 2.9 MJfossil/MJele
a 4.1. Lifecycle GHG emissions
Data from EBAMM software [72].
b
Data from Ref. [33].
c
Data from Ref. [76]. The environmental impact of converting sugarcane molasses to
d
Data from Ref. [32]. ethanol is analysed based on the emissions during the complete
e
Based on the Indonesia grid electricity production (26% coal, 24% gas, and 45% lifecycle chain (Tables 11 and 12). In Table 11, GHG emissions
coal) and their respective average conversion efficiencies.
per tonne cane processed in Indonesia are presented. The cane cul-
tivation leads to 49 kgCO2eq per tonne cane (tc) harvested with the
N2O emissions being the major contributor followed by cane trash
Table 7
Ethanol production data for Indonesia.
burning and decomposition. The transport of cane and filter cake
emits 4.9 kgCO2eq/tc.
Data Value Units
Ethanol yield 272 l/tonne molasses
Chemicals Sulphuric acid 0.008 l/l ethanol Table 9
Urea 0.006 l/l ethanol Fuel efficiency for different modes of transport.
Phosphoric acid 0.001 l/l ethanol
Mode of transport Fuel efficiency (MJ/t km)a
Yeast 0.0001 kg dry/l ethanol
Steam 4.8 kg/l ethanol Cane transport by truck 0.94
Electricity consumption 0.19 kWh/l ethanol Cane transport by rail 0.21
Stillage production 13.3 l/l ethanol Filter cake transport 3.60
Liquid transport by truck 1.01
All information from the field trip.
a
Steam and electricity are supplied by the sugar mill. BioGrace software [73].
762 D. Khatiwada et al. / Applied Energy 164 (2016) 756–768

Table 10 Cane Cane milling

Fuel emission and energy coefficients.
cultivation 18%
Transportation fuel Emission coefficient Energy coefficient 39%
(gCO2eq/MJ) (MJ/MJf)c
Diesel 90.28a 1.16 Ethanol
Coal 107b 1.00 combustion
a
Energy content (LHV) for diesel: 35.8 MJ/l and emission factor: 3.232 kgCO2eq/l 4%
[33].
b
Data obtained from Ref. [73].
c
Data obtained from Ref. [32].

Transport
8% Ethanol
Table 11
GHG emissions per tonne cane processed in Indonesia.
production
31%
Process Emissions (kgCO2eq/tc)
Fig. 3. Net greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol production in Indonesia.
Cane cultivation
Fertiliser and herbicide production 10.1
Sugarcane seeds production 0.2
N2O emissions 15.4
bagasse and coal. In ethanol production phase, emissions from coal
Human labour 8.4 combustion carry a significant share (i.e. 55%).
Cane trash burning and decomposition 15.0
Transportation 4.2. Lifecycle energy balance
Cane 4.2
Filter cake 0.7
The resource or energy consumption during the lifecycle of sug-
arcane molasses conversion to ethanol is estimated, including
feedstock production, ethanol conversion, and transportation
Table 12 (Table 13).
Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. The total energy consumption is 28.18 MJ (fossil: 3.49 MJ and
Process Emissions (gCO2eq/l of ethanol) renewable: 24.69 MJ) per litre of ethanol produced. Fig. 4 shows
the NREV, ER, and NEV for ethanol production in Indonesia.
Cane cultivation
Fertiliser and herbicide production 49 In the total energy consumption, cane milling (38%) and ethanol
Sugarcane seeds production 0.7 production (55%) consume most of the energy (Fig. 5).
N2O emissions 75.2 In terms of fossil fuel consumption, non-renewable energy
Human labour 40.8 required for the production of nitrogen fertiliser (cane cultivation)
Cane trash burning and decomposition 73.1
and coal use in cane milling and ethanol production are high com-
Cane milling pared to other activities.
Coal combustion 73.6
Bagasse combustion 34.6
Grid electricity use 3.9 4.3. Sensitivity analysis
Ethanol production
Coal combustion 107 Sensitivity analysis has been performed to examine the effect of
Bagasse combustion 50.3 changes in energy/chemical inputs, yields, and prices of molasses
Chemicals use 8.2
Spent wash disposal – N2O emissions 27.5
Table 13
Transportation
Lifecycle energy consumption.
Cane 20.4
Filter cake 3.4 Process Fossil inputs Renewable energy inputs
Stillage 5.0 (MJ/l) (MJ/l)
Molasses 1.3
Ethanol 17.5 Cane cultivation
Fertiliser and herbicide 0.63
Ethanol combustion production
Ethanol combustion in vehicles 25 Sugarcane seeds production 0.01
Total 616.5 (=29.1 gCO2eq/MJ) Human Labour 0.50 0.10
Cane milling
Grid electricity consumption 0.05
In Table 12, emissions from the upstream operations (cultiva- Coal consumption 0.69
Bagasse consumption 10.03
tion/harvesting and milling) are partitioned as per economic allo-
cation. The lifecycle emissions of the biofuel pathway is Ethanol production
Grid electricity use 1.00
estimated at 29.1 gCO2eq/MJ of ethanol whereas greenhouse gases
Fuel combustion 14.57
emissions for gasoline production and use are 87.6 gCO2eq/MJ [33].
Transportation
This shows that there is a 67% emission reduction in the overall
Cane 0.26
process chain of ethanol production in comparison with gasoline. Filter cake 0.04
Fig. 3 illustrates the net emissions by activity along the produc- Stillage 0.06
tion chain. Cane cultivation phase contributes most to the total Molasses 0.01
emissions. The major contribution within the cultivation phase is Ethanol 0.23

the production and application of nitrogen fertilisers. It contributes Total 3.49 24.69
40% of the cane cultivation emissions and, more importantly, 15% NEV 6.99
NREV 17.71
of the total lifecycle emissions. For cane milling and ethanol con-
ER 6.07
version, the majority of the emissions are from the burning of
 D. Khatiwada et al. / Applied Energy 164 (2016) 756–768 763

17.71 yield leading to higher ER. This is definitely one area that deserves
(MJ/l) attention.
The price of molasses plays a vital role. An increase in prices
would lead to higher allocation of resources to molasses thereby
reducing the ER. Ethanol yield from molasses is also crucial.
6.07 Researchers have been experimenting already on improving etha-
(MJ/MJf) nol production efficiency from molasses [52,53]. The sensitivity
analysis for GHG emissions (Fig. 7) gives results similar to the
energy yield ratio. Cane yield, price of molasses and ethanol yield
NREV are the sensitive parameters while the other parameters have neg-
ligible effect.
NEV ER Currently, molasses is a low-value co-product and the price
ratio of sugar to molasses is 9.6. The increased demand for ethanol
may lead to increases in the price of molasses. If the price of
-6.99 molasses increases the emissions savings are likely to be reduced.
(MJ/l) Researchers have explored the implication of allocation ratio on
emissions. Gopal and Kammen suggested that if the ratio of sugar
Fig. 4. Net energy value (NEV), energy yield ratio (ER) and net renewable energy
value (NREV) for ethanol production in Indonesia. to molasses price is reduced below a breakeven value (between 2
and 2.5), the use of molasses to produce ethanol is unsustainable
[46]. Khatiwada and Silveira showed that a 100% increase in
Cane molasses price led to a 90.2% decrease in the net energy value [36].
Transport cultivation In our analysis, when the price ratio becomes lower than 1.7
2% 5% (molasses price of 7000 IDR/kg), the emissions from cane molasses
to ethanol will be higher than that of gasoline (Fig. 8). Similarly, if
Cane
the price of molasses is increased by four times (i.e. 5000 IDR/kg),
milling
38% the energy yield ratio (ER) would be reduced to 2.5 from 6.1.
Hence, the use of molasses is sustainable while it is a low-value
product and attention should be paid to the development of mar-
Ethanol
ket demand for molasses to avoid distortions and loss of the ben-
production
55% efits. This analysis helps identify the most suitable economic
options on the commercial use of low-value co-product, i.e.
molasses.

4.4. Development of alternative scenarios

Fig. 5. Total energy consumption for ethanol production in Indonesia.

As mentioned previously, it is important to investigate the

(including sugar and molasses price ratio) on the net energy and
GHG balances. The variation of energy ratio or yield (ER) with
change in the parametric values is calculated and presented in
Fig. 6. The value of ER is highly sensitive to changes in cane yield,
ethanol yield and price of molasses. Minor changes in their values
show a large variation in the ER. If the cane yield drops, the energy
ratio decreases due to the lower output of ethanol. On the other
hand, improvement in agricultural practices will improve cane
alternative scenarios for optimal utilization of bio-resources or
co-products (i.e. bagasse, cane trash and biogas). For this, we con-
sider efficient cogeneration of sugarcane biomass and treatment of
wastewater (effluent or spent wash) with biogas recovery.
4.4.1. Efficient cogeneration and connection of excess electricity to the
grid
In Indonesia, most of the sugar mills are old (65% mills have
been operating from 100 to 184 years [54]) and bagasse is being

9 38
Energy yield

GHG emissions
(gCO2e/l)
ratio

Cane yield
Nitrogen use 36
8 Molasses price 34
Distance to mil
l
32
Ethanol yield
7
30

28
6
26 Cane yield
Nitrogen use
5 24
Molasses price
22 Distance to mill
Ethanol yield
4 20
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis for energy yield ratio. Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis for GHG emissions.
764 D. Khatiwada et al. / Applied Energy 164 (2016) 756–768

150 energy purposes will reduce open cane trash burning and decom-
position which add up to a significant amount of emissions. Cane
Ethanol trash is an important energy source and its use for energy produc-
GHG emissions (gCO2eq/MJ)

120 Gasoline tion is economically and environmentally feasible [55,56].

The efficient cogeneration plant can produce 100–150 kWh of
surplus electricity per tonne cane processed using sugarcane bio-
90
mass (bagasse and trash) [48]. It should be noted that the amount
of surplus biomass available for power production would be up to
60 65%, excluding the cane trash left in the field for maintaining the
soil quality. It is found that a 50% surplus sugarcane biomass could
generate 114 kWh electricity per tonne of cane. GHG emissions are
30 avoided when surplus bioelectricity generated in the mill is con-
nected into the electricity grid to substitute fossil-based electricity.
Since 95% grid electricity is produced from coal (45%) oil and gas
0 (50%) in Indonesia, there is a huge potential to reduce emissions
15 13 12 9.60 6 4 2 1.2 0.8
Price ratio (Sugar:Molasses) through the substitution of fossil based power. If 100 kWh surplus
electricity (per tonne cane processed) is assumed, the total avoided
Fig. 8. Effect of molasses price rise on net greenhouse gases emissions. Green dot emissions would be 5544 kgCO2eq per m3 of ethanol produced. The
represents the total emissions at the base case economic ratio, i.e. 9.6:1 share of molasses-ethanol after the allocation is 354 kgCO2eq. Fig. 9
(molasses:sugar). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
shows the lifecycle emissions considering a wide range of surplus
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
bioelectricity (0–150 kWh/tonne cane) in the efficient cogenera-
tion plant. At the level of 150 kWh/tonne cane surplus electricity,
the net GHG emissions savings would be 95% in comparison with
gasoline.

4.4.2. Alternative scenarios in wastewater treatment plants

Fig. 9. Lifecycle GHG emissions for various levels of surplus electricity sales to the
grid.
used inefficiently or combusted together with coal to meet the
energy requirements. An efficient cogeneration system with the
use of high pressure/temperature boilers and turbines/generators
can improve the energy output so that not only the internal energy
demand is met in the sugarcane mills but surplus bioelectricity can
be also produced. The excess bioelectricity can be fed into the elec-
tric grid or sold to nearby industries. The use of cane trash for co-
firing with bagasse is another possibility for enhancing the energy
yield of the sugar-ethanol industry. The use of cane trash for
Wastewater treatment facilities could generate biogas, another
energy source resulting from the sugar–ethanol production. Spent
wash or wastewater produced from the distillery generates emis-
sions if not disposed properly. This may add up to the total emis-
sions of the process chain, cancelling the GHG savings of ethanol
usage. Therefore, it is worth examining the biogas recovery and/
or leakage at the plant level, considering available wastewater
treatment options. The common waste water treatment facilities
for spent wash include anaerobic digestion (AD) or oxidation ponds
(OP) [33]. In AD process, large fermentation tanks are used under
anaerobic conditions to treat industrial sludge. The process reduces
the environmental pollutions and also produces biogas that can be
used as a fuel in boilers for energy generation. In the case of OP, the
water is treated by natural processes in large earthen basins but
biogas is not recovered.
The methodology for calculating the emissions from each treat-
ment method was adopted from Ref. [33]. While using the AD pro-
cess for wastewater treatment, we can recover 0.045 N m3 of
biogas per litre of spent wash processed, which is equivalent to
around 10% of bagasse in terms of energy content (i.e. 30 kg
bagasse per tonne cane).
Table 14 provides a comparative summary of the two treatment
options, viz. AD and OP processes. Using oxidation ponds (OP) as
treatment method is not sustainable in terms of climate change
impact (i.e. GHG emissions) and land requirements (see Table 14).

Table 14
Comparison of wastewater treatment options.

Advantages Disadvantages Emissionsa (gCO2eq/MJ) Surplus bagasseb (kWh/tc)

Anaerobic digestion Biogas production
High capital investment 16 (in 5% leakage) 52

Leakage issues 320 (in 100% leakage)
Oxidation ponds
Easy operation and maintenance Large area requirement 139 –

Low cost

Anaerobic digestion emissions = biogas yield ⁄ methane content ⁄ VM ⁄ leakage % ⁄ GWPmethane ⁄ stillage yield/ethanol LHV.
Oxidation ponds emissions = stillage emissions factor ⁄ BODstillage ⁄ stillage yield/ethanol LHV.
Biogas yield: 0.045 N m3/l stillage; methane content: 68%. VM: 0.00067 tonne/N m3; GWPmethane: 25; stillage yield: 13 l/l ethanol; ethanol LHV: 21.2 MJ/l ethanol; stillage
emissions factor: 5.52 kgCO2eqq/kg BOD. BODstillage: 40 g/L.
a
These are excess emissions in AD and OP. Total net emissions would be 29 gCO2eq/MJ plus emissions from AD or OP.
b
Surplus bagasse is estimated when biogas is utilized for energy production without any leakages.
 D. Khatiwada et al. / Applied Energy 164 (2016) 756–768 765

When 100% of wastewater is sent to the OP process, the total emis- 180
sions increase up to 93% (i.e. 168 gCO2eq/MJethanol) compared to
160
gasoline. Similarly, if 100% of biogas is allowed to emit or leak into

GHG emissions (gCO 2e/MJ)

the atmosphere from the AD treatment, there would be lifecycle Ethanol 140
emissions in the order of 349 gCO2eq/MJethanol. Gasoline
Fig. 10 shows the effect of biogas leakage on the total emissions. 120
At 19% leakage, the ethanol emissions exceed that of gasoline. On 100
the other hand, OP is easy to operate/maintain and it involves
low cost. A combination of both OP and AD treatment facilities 80
could be a viable option when considering wastewater treatment 60
options in ethanol distilleries. The results of diverting 0–100% of
wastewater in AD and OP are simulated (Fig. 11). It should be 40
noted that 5% leakage of biogas is considered in the AD treatment
20
option. If 65% of wastewater is treated in anaerobic digestion and
remaining in oxidation pond, then the lifecycle emissions of etha- -
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
nol would be higher than gasoline. Avoided emissions due to
replacement of fossil fuels (coal or diesel) from biogas recovered Share of wastewater treated in AD/PS (by volume)
from AD can also offset emissions to a certain level. The economic
Fig. 11. Lifecycle emissions (comparison of gasoline and ethanol) due to wastew-
aspects of installing wastewater and the practicalities of using co- ater treatment options.
firing have to be further addressed.

of ethanol in Guatemala [58]. Allocation is done as per the price

4.5. International references and comparison
of the products and sugar content of raw sugar and molasses.
Excess bioelectricity from cogeneration system is also allocated
The definition of system boundaries, geographical location,
to both sugar and molasses production. Restianti and Gheewala
functional units, allocation methods, and technological conver-
showed that cassava blended E10 (i.e. 10% blend of cassava-
sion practices varies widely among lifecycle analysis made of
based ethanol with gasoline) in Indonesia has potential to
biofuels. Khatiwada and Silveira performed LCA analyses of cane
reduce global warming and is cheaper than gasoline on per litre
molasses to ethanol conversion in the case of Nepal [32,35]. The
basis [59].
lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the energy yield
In spite of similar lifecycle studies, it is difficult to directly com-
ratio (ER) for molasses ethanol production were 20.4 gCO2eq/MJ
pare the LCA results without precisely defining the system bound-
and 7.5, respectively. The lifecycle emissions for anhydrous
ary, allocation methods, and energy conversion technologies,
ethanol were 436 kgCO2eq m3 (i.e. 20.6 gCO2eq/MJ) in 2005/06
among others. There have been efforts for establishing method-
in Brazil when sugarcane juice was used for ethanol production
ological coherences in accounting lifecycle GHG emissions and
[32]. Cane productivity and ethanol yield were the most impor-
resource consumption [33]. The use of allocation methods (i.e.
tant parameters in determining net emissions. In the same per-
mass/energy, economic or system expansion), feedstocks (A/B/C-
iod, the energy yield ratio for ethanol production was 9.3 in
molasses or sugarcane juice) for ethanol production, production
Brazil. Gopal and Kammen estimated the lifecycle GHG emis-
processes/efficiency, and direct/indirect land use change, and effi-
sions for molasses ethanol to be 15.1 gCO2eq/MJ [46]. The prices
cient use of main and primary/auxiliary energy co-products such
of molasses and sugar played a significant role in determining
as bagasse, biogas, bioelectricity have played key roles in the esti-
lifecycle emissions. Similarly, the study by Nguyen et al. on
mation of lifecycle energy and GHG balances. Besides, for a more
the analysis of energy values in Thailand estimated the net
precise comparison of LCA results, we need to incorporate local
energy value (NEV: 5.67) and net renewable energy value
agricultural practices, land use change pattern (esp. carbon-stock
(NREV: 5.95) [57]. The NEV was quite similar to that of
in the case of expanded sugarcane field), transport and logistics,
molasses ethanol in Indonesia that is 6.99. In the Thai case,
and land use change models for indirect land use emissions [42].
coal was a major fuel in the ethanol conversion. Rice husks
Many researchers have expressed concern over land use change
and wood wastes are used as alternative fuels in cane milling.
effects due to biofuel development [39,60–63]. Methodologies and
The carbon intensity of the identical modified pathway for pro-
modelling schemes are being developed to better understand and
duction of ethanol from sugarcane molasses was 17.53 gCO2eq/MJ
quantify these effects so as to incorporate them into the lifecycle
analysis [63–65]. Land use change emissions mainly occur due to
400 land use conversion (e.g. forests and grasslands to cropland,
changes in type of crops grown in a particular area) in which there
GHG emissions (gCO 2eq/MJ)

350 are alterations in biomass stocks and soil carbon. An example is

300 intensifying the biofuel development by replacing grassland or for-
Ethanol
est land with sugarcane plantation, which could have impacts on
250 Gasoline
emissions and biodiversity. Therefore, the expansion of sugarcane
200 fields for sugar and ethanol production needs to be addressed
carefully.
150
In Indonesia, there is no local data on carbon stocks for land use
100 types. Therefore, in order to observe the impact of LUC due to the
50 expansion of sugarcane cultivation area, the total carbon stocks (in
biomass: above and below and in soil: soil organic carbon) of
0 sugarcane plantation are assumed to 69 tonne-carbon per hectare
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% leakage of biogas from AD process (tC/ha) considering the cases of Brazil and Mexico [31,66]. Grass-
land is considered to be converted for sugarcane production with
Fig. 10. Lifecycle emissions due to biogas leakage in anaerobic digestion. the total carbon stocks of 95 tC/ha [31]. In the reference case, the
766 D. Khatiwada et al. / Applied Energy 164 (2016) 756–768
total emissions savings from the molasses-ethanol is estimated at
1.3 tCO2eq per hectare and the emissions between the main and
co-product (viz. sugar and molasses) are shared as per economic
allocation. In land use change (LUC) scenario using grassland as
the proxy, the total direct carbon loss allocated for molasses-
ethanol is found to be 6 tCO2eq per hectare which is apparently
higher than the net savings. Thus, the carbon payback period
would be around 5 years. The emissions and payback period are
indicative for the emissions impact of direct land use change
(dLUC) if land with higher carbon stocks is converted for sugarcane
production. The payback time or carbon debt is less compared to
the impact of LUC when land is expanded for biofuel production
in peat land and forests [60]. It should be noted that ‘carbon debt’
is the amount of time required for biofuel carbon offset to repay
the carbon debt created due to land use conversion/expansion,
and it would only be paid if the lifecycle emissions of biofuel is less
than that of the substituted fossil fuel.
The total carbon stocks of land use in a particular region or
country depend on climatic conditions, ecological zone, soil types,
management practices (e.g. full tillage or reduce tillage), among
others [67]. Therefore, it is important to find the specific carbon
stocks while considering the land use change emissions. It should
be mentioned that improvements in feedstock/product yield
(tonne cane or ethanol litre per hectare), surplus electricity gener-
ation from efficient sugarcane biomass cogeneration and biogas
recovery could help improve emissions significantly, thereby
reducing the payback period.
5. Conclusion
The net lifecycle GHG emissions of conversion of cane
molasses to ethanol in Indonesia is 29 gCO2eq per MJ of ethanol
produced if the resources are economically allocated. This implies
a 67% reduction of emissions compared to gasoline. The share of
emissions is highest in the cane cultivation phase, mainly result-
ing from the production and application of nitrogen based fertil-
izers. Net Energy Value (NEV) is estimated to be –6.99 MJ
(negative) per litre of ethanol produced. The positive value of
Net Renewable Energy Value (i.e. NREV: 17.71 MJ/l)) shows that
fossil energy consumption is quite low in comparison to final
energy content of ethanol.
Results of sensitivity analysis suggest that energy and emission
values are strongly sensitive to sugarcane yield, price of molasses
and ethanol yield. Improving the yields can lead to further emis-
sion reductions. In terms of resource consumption and climate
change effects, conversion of molasses to ethanol is sustainable
in comparison to gasoline. Sugarcane-molasses ethanol has no sig-
nificant direct land use change (dLUC) impact as long as the low-
value feedstock is used. However, if higher-valued molasses (A or
B) or cane juice is used for ethanol production, some additional
land use expansion could be stimulated, which can lead to emis-
sions from land use conversion. However, if sugarcane cultivation
is expanded in degraded pasture lands or cropland with lower car-
bon stocks, it would be even possible to reduce the total emissions.
Therefore, optimal utilization of resources and improved yields are
necessary to guarantee the full benefits of sustainable ethanol pro-
duction. Land use models based on geospatial information as well
as cause-effect analyses based on the selection of local land use
types can help identify the lifecycle emissions, especially from land
use change [41].
The use of efficient bagasse cogeneration for surplus bioelectric-
ity production system along with sugarcane trash/residues com-
bustion in boilers, biogas recovery from the treatment of spent
wash or waste water (effluent of distilleries) at anaerobic digestion
(AD) plant, and their utilization in the substitution of fossil fuels
could lead to further reductions in the climate change impact
(GHG emissions) and reduced dependency on fossil fuels. There-
fore, if the government of Indonesia aims to promote biofuels as
well as sugar self-sufficiency, then it should support investment
in sugarcane agricultural systems and upgrading of the sugarcane
mills and distilleries to insure the most resource-efficient
operations.
Acknowledgements
This study is initiated as part of the SIDA’s Partner Driven
Cooperation (PDC) project. The authors would like to thank the
Indonesian Sugar Research Institute (ISRI) – Pusat Penelitian
Perkebunan Gula Indonesia (P3GI), and Jatiroto sugar mill, East
Java for providing data and support during the field visit. The
authors acknowledge Mr. Victor Samuel for his help in data col-
lection and the support of local partners particularly Dr. I.
Wayan Alit Artha Wiguna (Institute for Agriculture Assessment
Technology), and Dr. Takeshi Takama (Stockholm Environment
Institute, SEI).
References
[1] REN21. Renewables 2015 Global Status Report (REN21): Renewable Energy
Policy Network for the 21th Century; 2015. <http://ren21.net/>.
[2] BP Statistical Review of World Energy. 2014. <http://www.bp.com/
statisticalreview> [accessed 10 April 2015].
[3] Gasparatos A, Stromberg P. Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of
biofuels: evidence from developing nations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press; 2012.
[4] Goldemberg J. Ethanol for a sustainable energy future. Science
2007;315:808–10.
[5] Johnson FX, Silveira S. Pioneer countries in the transition to alternative
transport fuels: comparison of ethanol programmes and policies in Brazil,
Malawi and Sweden. Environ Innovation Soc Trans 2014;11:1–24.
[6] EIA. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014. <http://www.
eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=ID> [accessed 25 July 2014].
[7] IEA. Energy supply security emergency response of partners countries 2014
Indonesia. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2014.
[8] Mujiyanto S, Tiess G. Secure energy supply in 2025: Indonesia’s need for an
energy policy strategy. Energy Policy 2013;61:31–41. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.119.
[9] Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Republic of Indonesia. Potensi
Energi Baru Terbarukan Indonesia Cukup Untuk 100 Tahun [in Indonesian];
2012. <http://www.esdm.go.id/news-archives/323-energi-baru-dan-
terbarukan/6071-potensi-energi-baru-terbarukan-indonesia-cukup-untuk-
100-tahun-.html> [accessed 24 July 2014].
[10] Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Republic of Indonesia. Handbook of
Energy and Economics Statistics of Indonesia; 2014.
[11] BPPT. Indonesia Energy Outlook 2014. Agency for the Assessment and
Application of Technology; 2014.
[12] Ministry of Environment, Republic of Indonesia. Indonesia Second National
Communication Under The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC). Climate Change Protection for Present and Future
Generation; 2010. <http://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/non-annex_
i_natcom/submitted_natcom/application/pdf/indonesia_snc.pdf> [accessed
25 July 2014].
[13] Demirbas A. Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels: a
review. Appl Energy 2009;86:S108–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2009.04.036.
[14] Zhou A, Thomson E. The development of biofuels in Asia. Appl Energy 2009;86:
S11–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.028.
[15] Yan J, Lin T. Biofuels in Asia. Appl Energy 2009;86:S1–S10. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.07.004.
[16] Dermawan A, Obidzinski K, Komarudin H. Withering before full bloom?
Bioenergy in Southeast Asia (working Paper 94) CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia; 2012.
[17] BBC news. Indonesia fuel prices rocket by 44% sparking protests; 22 June 2013.
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23015511> [accessed 27 July 2014].
[18] Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Republic of Indonesia. Handbook of
Energy and Economics Statistics of Indonesia; 2012.
[19] GAIN. Indonesia: Biofuels Annual 2014. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service,
Global Agriculture Information Network; 2014.
[20] FAO. FAO-STAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;
2014.
[21] GAIN. Indonesia: Sugar Annual 2013. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service,
Global Agriculture Information Network; 2014.
[22] Johnson FX, Seebaluck V. Bioenergy for sustainable development and
international competitiveness: the role of sugar cane in
Africa. London: Routledge/Earthscan; 2012.
 D. Khatiwada et al. / Applied Energy 164 (2016) 756–768
[23] Khatiwada D. Assessing the sustainability of bioethanol production in different
development contexts. PhD Thesis. Sweden: KTH Royal Institute of
Technology; 2013.
[24] Stichnothe H, Azapagic A. Bioethanol from waste: life cycle estimation of the
greenhouse gas saving potential. Resour, Conservation Recycl
2009;53:624–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.04.012.
[25] Gnansounou E, Dauriat A, Villegas J, Panichelli L. Life cycle assessment of
biofuels: energy and greenhouse gas balances. Bioresour Technol
2009;100:4919–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.05.067.
[26] Singh A, Pant D, Olsen SI. Life cycle assessment of renewable energy sources.
Green Energy Technol 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5364-1_1.
Springer-Verlag, London.
[27] Stephenson AL, Dupree P, Scott SA, Deniss JS. The environmental and economic
sustainability of potential bioethanol from willow in UK. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:9612–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.07.104.
[28] Foteinis S, Kouloumpis V, Tsoutsos T. Life cycle analysis for bioethanol
production from sugar beet crops in Greece. Energy Policy 2011;39:4834–41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.036.
[29] Malca J, Freire F. Renewability and life-cycle energy efficiency of bio-ethanol
and bio-ethyl tertiary butyl ether (bioETBE): assessing the implications of
allocation. Energy 2006;31:3362–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2006.03.013.
[30] Wang M, Shi Y, Xia X, Li D, Chen Q. Life-cycle energy efficiency and
environmental impacts of bioethanol production from sweet potato.
Bioresour Technol 2013;133:285–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2013.01.067.
[31] García CA, Fuentes A, Hennecke A, Riegelhaupt E, Manzini F, Masera O. Life-
cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances of sugarcane ethanol
production in Mexico. Appl Energy 2011;88:2088–97. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.12.072.
[32] Macedo IC, Seabra JEA, Silva JEAR. Greenhouse gases emissions in the
production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006
averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:582–95.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.12.006.
[33] Khatiwada D, Silveira S. Greenhouse gas balances of molasses based ethanol in
Nepal. J Cleaner Prod 2011;19:1471–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2011.04.012.
[34] Ebner J, Babbitt C, Martin W, Hilton B, Anahita W. Life cycle greenhouse gas
(GHG) impacts of a novel process for converting food waste to ethanol and co-
products. Appl Energy 2014;130:86–93.
[35] Macedo IC. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances in bio-ethanol
production and utilization in Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy 1996;14:77–81. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)00038-X.
[36] Khatiwada D, Silveira S. Net energy balance of molasses based ethanol: the
case of Nepal. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:2515–24. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.028.
[37] Silalertruksa T, Gheewala HS, Pongpat P. Sustainability assessment of
sugarcane biorefinery and molasses ethanol production in Thailand using
eco-efficiency indicator, Applied Energy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.
2015.08.087 (in press).
[38] Von Blottnitz H, Curran MA. A review of assessments conducted on bio-
ethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and
environmental life cycle perspective. J Cleaner Prod 2007;15:607–19. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.03.002.
[39] 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;319:1238–40. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1126/science.1151861.
[40] Rosillo-Calle F, Johnson FX. Food versus fuel: an informed introduction to
biofuels. London: ZED Books; 2010.
[41] Gawel E, Ludwig G. The iLUC dilemma: how to deal with indirect land use
changes when governing energy crops? Land Use Policy 2011;28:846–56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.03.003.
[42] Khatiwada D, Seabra J, Silveira S, Walter A. Accounting greenhouse gas
emissions in the lifecycle of Brazilian sugarcane bioethanol: methodological
references in European and American regulations. Energy Policy
2012;47:384–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.005.
[43] Finkbeiner M. Indirect land use change – help beyond the hype? Biomass
Bioenergy 2014;62:218–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2014.01.024.
[44] ISO. International standard ISO 14040: environmental management – life cycle
assessment – principles and framework. International Organization for
Standardization (ISO); 2006.
[45] ISO. International standard ISO 14044: environmental management – life cycle
assessment – requirements and guidelines. International Organization for
Standardization (ISO); 2006.
[46] Gopal AR, Kammen DM. Molasses for ethanol: the economic and
environmental impacts of a new pathway for the lifecycle greenhouse gas
analysis of sugarcane ethanol. Environ Res Lett 2009;4:1–5. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/044005.
[47] Nguyen TLT, Gheewala SH. Fuel ethanol from cane molasses in Thailand:
environmental and cost performance. Energy Policy 2008;36:1589–99. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.008.
[48] Khatiwada D, Seabra J, Silveira S, Walter A. Power generation from sugarcane
biomass – a complementary option to hydroelectricity in Nepal and Brazil.
Energy 2012;48:241–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.015.
767
[49] Nguyen TLT, Gheewala SH, Garivait S. Fossil energy savings and GHG
mitigation potentials of ethanol as a gasoline substitute in Thailand. Energy
Policy 2007;35:5195–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.04.038.
[50] Nguyen TLT, Gheewala SH, Sagisaka M. Greenhouse gas savings potential of
sugar cane bio-energy systems. J Cleaner Prod 2010;18:412–8. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.012.
[51] FAO. FAO Water, Crop Water Information: Sugarcane 2013. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2013. <http://www.fao.org/
nr/water/cropinfo_sugarcane.html> [accessed 13 May 2014].
[52] Periyasamy S, Venkatachalam S, Ramasamy S, Srinivasan V. Production of bio-
ethanol from sugar molasses using Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Modern Appl Sci
2009;3:32–7.
[53] Dhillon GS, Bansal S, Oberoi SH. Cauliflower waste incorporation into cane
molasses improves ethanol production using Saccharomyces cerevisiae MTCC
178. Indian J Microbiol 2007;47:353–7.
[54] Triantarti. Sugarcane Research in Indonesia. Indonesian Sugar Research
Institute, Pasuruan, Indonesia; 2014.
[55] Bizzo WA, Lenco PC, Carvalho DJ, Veiga JPS. The generation of residual biomass
during the production of bio-ethanol from sugarcane, its characterization and
its use in energy production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:589–603.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.056.
[56] Suramaythangkoor T, Li Z. Energy policy tools for agricultural residues
utilization for heat and power generation: a case study of sugarcane trash in
Thailand. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:4343–51. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.033.
[57] Nguyen TLT, Gheewala SH, Garivait S. Full chain energy analysis of fuel ethanol
from cane molasses in Thailand. Appl Energy 2008;85:722–34. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.02.002.
[58] Unnasch S, Waterland L. Guatemalan-modified greet pathway for the
production of ethanol from sugarcane molasses. Life Cycle Associates; 2013.
[59] Restianti YY, Gheewala SH. Environmental and life cycle cost assessment of
cassava ethanol in Indonesia. J Sustain Energy Environ 2012;3:1–6.
[60] Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P. Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt. Science 2008;319:1235. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1126/science.1152747.
[61] Borjesson P, Tufvesson LM. Agricultural crop-based biofuels – resource
efficiency and environmental performance including direct land use changes.
J Cleaner Prod 2011;19:108–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2010.01.001.
[62] Witcover J, Yeh S, Sperling D. Policy options to address global land use change
from biofuels. Energy Policy 2013;56:63–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2012.08.030.
[63] Mosnier A, Havlik P, Valin H, Baker J, Murray B, Feng S, et al. Alternative U.S.
biofuel mandates and global GHG emissions: the role of land use change, crop
management and yield growth. Energy Policy 2013;57:602–14. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.035.
[64] Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH, Sagisaka M. Impacts of Thai bio-ethanol policy
target on land use and greenhouse gas emissions. Appl Energy 2009;86:
S170–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.05.010.
[65] Yeh S, Witcover J. Indirect land-use change from biofuels: recent
developments in modeling and policy landscapes. International Food &
Agricultural Trade Policy Council; 2010.
[66] Macedo IC, Seabra JEA. Mitigation of GHG emissions using sugarcane
bioethanol (pp. 95–110). Sugarcane ethanol: contributions to climate change
mitigation and sugarcane ethanol. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic
Publishers; 2008.
[67] European Commission. Commission Decision of 10 June 2010 on guidelines for
the calculation of land carbon stocks for the purpose of Annex V to Directive
2009/28/EC; 2010.
[68] Nguyen TLT, Gheewala SH. Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from cane
molasses in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2008;13:301–11. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11367-008-0011-2.
[69] ABB. Indonesia – Energy efficiency report; 2011. <http://www.abb.com/cawp/
db0003db002698/6cc1f7ff2eff1660c12579ba004b64ef.aspx> [accessed 30
July 2014].
[70] World Bank. GNI per capita, Atlas method; 2013. <http://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD?page=1> [accessed on May 2014].
[71] Herold A. Comparison of CO2 emission factors for fuels used in Greenhouse Gas
Inventories and consequences for monitoring and reporting under the EC
emissions trading scheme. European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change;
2003.
[72] EBAMM. The ERG Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model (EBAMM) 2006. The
Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), Faculty of the Energy
and Resources Group (ERG) and Richard & Rhoda Goldman School of Public
Policy at University of California (UC), Berkeley; 2006.
[73] IEE. BioGrace Project: Harmonised Calculations of Bioenergy Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in Europe Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE); 2010. Detailed
information. <www.biograce.net>.
[74] Odum HT. Systems ecology. New York: Wiley; 1983. p. 476–507.
[75] Nguyen TLT, Ghewala SH, Garivait S. Energy balance and GHG-abatement cost
of cassava utilization for fuel ethanol in Thailand. Energy Policy
2007;35:4585–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.012.
[76] Brander M, Sood A, Wylie C, Haughton A, Lovell J. Ecometrica: electricity-
specific emission factors for grid electricity; 2011. <http://ecometrica.com/
assets//Electricity-specific-emission-factors-for-grid-electricity.pdf> [accessed
July 2014].
768 D. Khatiwada et al. / Applied Energy 164 (2016) 756–768

[77] GREET 1.8. Greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in [79] Koponen K, Soimakallio S, Sipila E. Assessing the greenhouse gas emissions of
transportation (GREET). Argonne, IL, USA: Argonne National Laboratory; 2011. waste derived ethanol in accordance with the EU RED methodology for
[78] Wood S, Cowie A. A review of greenhouse gas emissions factors for fertilizer biofuels. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland; 2009. <http://www.vtt.fi/
production. IEA Bioenergy Task 38, New South Wales; 2004. inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2009/T2507.pdf> [accessed July 2014].