Modeling and Analysis

Assessing and choosing the optimum

blend of biodiesel, hydrogenated
vegetable oil, and petroleum diesel
based on sustainability in Indonesia
Ahmad Syauqi , Sustainable Energy Systems and Policy Research Cluster, Universitas Indonesia,
Depok, Indonesia; Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia,
Depok, Indonesia
Alin Halimatussadiah , Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas
Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
Widodo Wahyu Purwanto , Sustainable Energy Systems and Policy Research Cluster, Universitas
Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia; Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas
Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia; Master Program in Energy Systems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

Received December 27 2021; Revised June 21 2022; Accepted June 27 2022;

View online at Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com);
DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402; Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022)

Abstract: The trend towards increasing biofuel blending mandates in several countries has raised a
sustainability trilemma, especially for biofuels derived from palm oil. This study aims to find the most
sustainable hydrogen production technology for the production of hydrogenated vegetable oil (HVO) and
biofuel blending. It assesses the sustainability of palm-oil-derived biofuel blending of biodiesel (FAME),
HVO, and petroleum diesel. There are three hydrogen production options for HVO: steam methane
reforming (SMR), biomass gasification (BG), and electrolysis from solar energy (PVELC). The use of any
production option depends on a combination of fuel quality standards and the prioritized sustainability
considerations. The fuel quality aspects consist of constraints on the quality of the blend based on EURO-
2, EURO-4, and EURO-5 fuel standards, while sustainability priorities lead to varying policy preferences
involving economic, environmental, and social sustainability considerations. There are two approaches
to determine the most sustainable blend: using the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to
Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method and using the sustainability index. The results show that scenarios that
favor the economic dimension tend to produce a higher FAME blend, whereas those that prioritize the
environment emphasize higher HVO blending with PVELC as the hydrogen production technology. Finally,
any scenario that prefers the social aspects tends to produce higher biofuel blending. Overall, to achieve
higher sustainability, higher biofuel blending is needed. The policy analysis section concludes that the
biofuel policy direction should focus more on combining HVO and FAME so that each can offset the
disadvantages of the other. © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Correspondence to: Widodo Wahyu Purwanto, Sustainable Energy Systems and Policy Research Cluster, Universitas
Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia. E-mail: widodo@che.ui.ac.id

© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
A Syauqi et al.
Supporting information may be found in the online version of this article.
Key words: sustainability; multi-criteria decision making; biofuel; blending; palm oil
Introduction
S
everal countries have set mandatory blending
mandates for biofuel mixed with diesel. For example,
Brazil has planned to set the biodiesel (FAME)
blending mandate to 15% by 2023. Similarly, Indonesia
has set the FAME blending mandate to be 30% by 2020.
However, increasing the biofuel blending mandate has
several sustainability problems. Despite being promoted
as a low-carbon fuel, biofuel is often criticized for having
unintended environmental consequences such as land-use
change, water scarcity, and in some conditions, a carbon
footprint that is greater than that of regular petroleum
diesel.1 Fertilizers and pesticides used in palm-oil
plantations have also affected water and land quality.2
Palm-oil plantations have been noted to contribute
to local economies by creating jobs, promoting local
infrastructure, and helping to alleviate rural poverty.3–5
However, various sources have reported that land grabbing
from corporations to enable large-scale biofuel production
can lead to social conflict between locals and companies.6–8
Such environmental and social drawbacks of biofuel
production are often overlooked as countries gain various
economic benefits. Implementing higher blending mandates
can help to enhance national energy security and reduce
dependence on imported oil, leading to a healthier trade
balance. For example, China reported savings of 1 billion
USD through the utilization of local biofuel.9 Brazil’s main
motivation for using biofuels was to increase national energy
security following the petroleum shortage in 1973.10 The
counterbalancing of positive and negative impacts of each
aspect listed above creates a conflict between three kinds of
sustainability considerations – economic, environmental, and
social. Improvement of one aspect of sustainability sometimes
negatively affects other aspects of sustainability – for instance,
to gain maximal economic benefit sometimes sacrificing the
environmental and/or social considerations is an unintended
consequence that needs to be borne. This phenomenon is
often termed a ‘sustainability trilemma’.
Although attention remains focused on blending FAME
with the diesel mix, some have begun to blend other types of
biofuels, such as hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO).11 Recent
claims that HVO is greener than FAME have led to increased
traction surrounding the possibility of HVO replacing
diesel completely.12 Hydrotreated vegetable oil is produced
2 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402
Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel
from the hydrogenation of vegetable oils such as palm oil,
where hydrogen is used to break down large molecules into
smaller ones. In this process, the hydrogen usually comes
from the methane from natural gas using a process called
steam methane reforming (SMR). However, SMR is an
unsustainable process, and there are important environmental
consequences associated with the production of hydrogen
using this method. To overcome these consequences, and
reduce the trilemma resulting from the addition of HVO
to the diesel mix, hydrogen can be produced through more
sustainable processes such as biomass gasification (BG), or
electrolysis from solar energy (PVELC).13
Previous research has provided various perspectives
regarding the sustainability of different methods of biofuel
production. Studies have assessed the sustainability of
producing various biofuel types. Soam et al. and Arvidsson
et al.14,15 investigated the sustainability of the HVO from an
environmental perspective. Glensor et al.16 conducted a well-
to-wheel environmental assessment of FAME and bioethanol
and compared it with electric vehicle utilization. Adler et
al.17 presented a life-cycle sustainability analysis of FAME
and bioethanol in the USA. Ramos et al.18 have reviewed
the biodiesel production method and ways to improve its
sustainability such as replacing methanol with ethanol as
well as using other types of catalysts to improve FAME
production. Silalertruksa et al.19 assessed the sustainability
of FAME production in Thailand from both economic
and environmental perspectives. Yang et al.20 conducted a
sustainability assessment of FAME production from algae
in a social and economic context. Cabrera-Jimenez et al.21
assessed the sustainability of 72 routes of biofuel production
consisting of producing biodiesel, bioethanol, and renewable
diesel, considering three different aspects: economic,
environmental, and social. Previous studies regarding the
sustainability assessment of biofuels production have focused
largely on FAME, however, pure FAME cannot completely
replace petroleum diesel. Some studies have suggested HVO
as a more adequate replacement for petroleum diesel.22,23
Hence this study aims to add to the existing literature about
the sustainability of both FAME and HVO in diesel mix,
which was rarely explored by previous studies. This study also
aims to explore the possibility of reducing the environmental
impact of HVO by examining the effect of alternative
hydrogen sources, namely SMR, BG, and PVELC, on the
sustainability of the diesel mix.
Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel
Some studies have also used sustainability as a basis to
make decisions on various problems in the production
of biofuels. Delrue et al.24 used a sustainability-based
comparison to determine the best technological pathway,
from an economic, environmental, and energy perspective,
to produce FAME from microalgae. Dinh et al.25 used the
analytical hierarchy method to determine the best feedstock
for production, where the best feedstock is determined
from various economic, environmental, and technical
criteria. Similarly, Anwar et al.26 used several multi-criteria
decision-making and weighting methods, to determine the
best feedstock for producing FAME from an economic,
environmental, and technical perspective. Finally, Safarian
et al.27 used the ranking method to determine the most
sustainable feedstock of FAME from social, environmental,
economic, and energy-related perspectives. Most of the
research in this area is dominated by the decision making
regarding biofuel feedstock or technology selection, the real
problem faced by most countries is the share of biofuels
in fuel blending, and studies to determine the share of
blending of biofuel based on sustainability are still lacking.
This work attempts to fill this research gap by determining
fuel blending from various sustainability perspectives.
The study aims to determine the most sustainable
technology to produce hydrogen for HVO production,
and the share of FAME and HVO in a diesel fuel blend
needed to make biofuels environmentally, economically,
and socially sustainable using the Technique for Order
Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method
and the sustainability index. The two approaches are used to
study the effect of preferences toward the blending of biofuel
and petroleum diesel.
Method
This section describes the methodology used to produce the
blending of biofuel. It considers two different variables: the
fuel quality standard and prioritized sustainability aspects.
The fuel-quality standard comprises three levels of quality –
Table 1. Fuel quality standard 28,29.
Parameter Unit EURO-2
Minimal Maximal
Cetane number 51 — 53
Density Kg/m3 815 840
Viscosity mm2/s 2 4
Sulfur content Ppm — 500
Lubricity Micron — 460
Water content Mg/kg — 200
© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402
A Syauqi et al.
EURO-2, EURO-4, and EURO-5 standards – in anticipation
of the Indonesian government’s planned increase of fuel
quality from EURO-2 to EURO-5 shortly. This change
will constrain fuel blending because the resulting blend
would have to comply with specifications. To measure the
magnitude of sustainability preferences, a sensitivity analysis
was conducted to examine the effect of different tendency
toward one of the sustainability aspects against the resulting
blending. Therefore the result of this study is a blending
percentage of the diesel mix under certain fuel specifications
with the tendency toward any one of the sustainability
aspects. Three sustainability considerations are discussed in
this study. The first is the economic aspect, which is further
broken down into three indicators: levelized production cost
(LPC), current account, and burden on society. The second
is the environmental aspect, which comprises greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions, land use, and water use. The last
sustainability consideration is the social aspect, which also
consists of three indicators: social conflict cost, job creation,
and PM2.5 emissions.
Scenario
To determine the ideal blending of biofuels, two things
needed to be considered i.e. fuel quality and sustainability
preference. The fuel quality comprises EURO-2, EURO-4,
and EURO-5 standards while the sustainability preference
consists of preference toward economic, environment, and
social. This scenario was investigated to determine the best
blend of diesel mixes with different fuel qualities that comply
with the fuel standards. The fuel quality standards for EURO-
2, EURO-4, and EURO-5 are listed in Table 1.
The fuel quality standard parameter is achieved by blending
three different fuels, FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel
as shown in Table 2. There are three types of HVO, which
differ in terms of the hydrogen production technology used.
Hydrotreated vegetable oil can be produced using hydrogen
from natural gas (HVO-SMR), biomass (HVO-BG), and
solar energy (HVO-PVELC). These three HVOs are different
in the sustainability aspect indicator such as HVO-PVELC
EURO-4 EURO-5
Minimal Maximal Minimal Maximal
— 53 —
815 840 815 845
2 4 2 4
— 50 — 10
— 460 — 460
— 200 — 200
3
A Syauqi et al. Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel

has lower GHG emission than the other, but they do not Sustainability indicator
differ in fuel properties; hence these three HVOs can be
either blended or used independently in the diesel mix. The Economic indicators
blending of the fuel follows certain mixing rules described in The LPC, current account, and burden on society
Equations (A1)–(A6) in the appendix.30,31 Here, subscript f represent the three economic dimensions measured.
describes the properties belonging to a certain fuel, and the Levelized production cost is one of the most important
subscript blend describes the properties that belong to the aspects of biofuel economics because price is the factor
blended fuel; xf and yf denote the volume and mass fraction that consumers consider most when shifting from
of fuel type f in the blend, respectively. CN, ρ, SC, WC, L, and petroleum fuel to biofuel. The current account represents
μ represent the various properties of the fuel: cetane number, a country’s imports and exports of goods and services,
density, sulfur content, water content, lubricity, and viscosity, as well as international transfers of capital. In Indonesia,
respectively. the implementation of the FAME blending mandate is
The three preferred sustainability aspects are represented motivated by the fact that the country is a petroleum diesel
by weight in preference of sustainability. The sustainability importer and there is an urgent need to reduce outflowing
preference for each indicator is determined by weighting that cash. Finally, the burden to society indicates the amount of
will be used in the TOPSIS method. The weighting of each additional cost borne by the customer for changing from
sustainability indicator is presented in Table 3. existing diesel to blended diesel. Equation (1) estimates the
Then, both considerations are merged and divided into nine LPC of the diesel mix. The LPC is the cost of producing
different scenarios to simultaneously determine the best fuel 1 L of the FAME mix without margin and it is estimated by
mix under different fuel quality and sustainability priorities. summing the specific production costs of each fuel (cf ) with
All the scenarios are listed in Table 4. the share of each fuel in the diesel mix (xf ). The levelized
cost data were retrieved from our previous research.28,32
Table 2. Specification of each fuel. The levelized cost consisted of investment, operating, and
feedstock cost of producing 1 L of each fuel. Equations (2)
Unit FAME Petroleum HVO
diesel and (3) calculate the current account (CA), which can be
Cetane number 66.7 53.5 78.5 used to measure the amount of cash required to import the
Density Kg/m3 877.64 821 823
fuel. The variables caf, IPf, and Df are the amount of cash
Viscosity 2
mm /s 4.5 2.42 3
required to import fuel f, imported price of fuel f, and the
percentage of domestic production of the fuel, respectively.
Sulfur content Ppm 0 128 1
For this study, it is assumed that only petroleum diesel
Lubricity Micron 186 297 650
is imported because Indonesia is a diesel importer,
Water content Mg/kg 270.87 56 42
whereas the other fuels are produced domestically because
Indonesia is the largest crude palm-oil producer in the
world. The total burden on society (BS) is estimated using
Table 3. Sustainability preference consideration.
Eqn (4). The burden on society is computed when the
Preference Weight production cost of blended fuel exceeds the fixed retail
toward Economic (%) Environment Social price of Indonesian diesel (RP) for each EURO fuel quality
(%) (%)
standard.
Economic 50 25 25
Environment
Social
25
25
50
25
25
50
LPC   f x f c f (1)


Table 4. Scenarios based on sustainability aspect preference and fuel quality standard consideration.
Economic 50% Economic 25% Economic 25%
Environment 25% Environment 50% Environment 25%
Social 25% Social 25% Social 50%
EURO-2 Scenario E2-ECON Scenario E2-ENV Scenario E2-SOC
EURO-4 Scenario E4-ECON Scenario E4-ENV Scenario E4-SOC
EURO-5 Scenario E5-ECON Scenario E5-ENV Scenario E5-SOC

4 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402
Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel A Syauqi et al.



ca f  
 f
 
IPf  x f  D f , if x f  D f
 0, if x f  D f
 matter emissions (PM2.5) were considered indicators of the
CA   f
ca f

 LPC  RP , if LPC  RP
BS  
 0, if LPC  RP

Environment indicators
The environmental indicator is broken down further into
three sub-indicators: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
land use, and water use, which represent the major
environmental issues caused by petroleum and biofuel.
The system boundary of the environmental indicators
are well-to-wheel. The amount of GHG emitted (GHG),
land required (LU), and water used (WU) are computed
based on Eqns (5)–(7), respectively. The GHG emitted is
a function of the total GHG emissions from fuel f based
on the life-cycle assessment of the fuel (GWPf ). The
GHG data are calculated based on the emission from
plantation until the production of the fuel, including the
GHG data coming from the land-use change, and the
emission data coming from the average emission from
land-use change for palm oil plantations in Indonesia.
Various sources28, 32–35 are utilized to retrieve these
data. Assessment of the total land and water required to
produce 1 L of diesel mix is carried out by measuring
each fuel’s specific land use (Lf ) and specific water use
(uf ). The land use is determined by the land required to
produce 1 L of fuel; the land accounted for in this study
is the land occupied for plantation and fuel production.
The water accounted for in the water use is the total
water consumption for inceptisol soil type for plants
aged 8 years.36
Social indicators
(2) Job creation (JC), social conflict cost (SCC), and particulate
social sustainability aspect. Job creation is one of the most
common justifications for expanding biofuel implementation.
(3)
The social conflict cost is one of the most important social
aspects faced by Indonesia because of the expansion of
the palm-oil industry. The industry’s existence sometimes
causes conflict between local people and corporations due to
(4)
environmental damage, disappointment over the preferences
to employ non-local labor due to lack of skill of locals, or even
issues of land grabbing.37 Particulate matter emissions were
selected because they are among the most harmful emissions to
human health that come from diesel engines.38 Equations (8)–
(10) are used to calculate job creation, social conflict costs,
and particulate emissions, respectively. Jf and CCf denote the
specific job creation of each fuel and conflict cost per liter
of each fuel. In this study, specific job creation measures the
number of jobs created during the plantation/extraction and
production stages of each fuel’s value chain. The specific social
conflict cost measures the tangible costs faced by the industry
to solve the conflict with local people.37 Particulate matter
emissions are estimated by computing total particulate matter
emissions as a function of specific particulate matter emissions
(pmf ), which are the amount of PM2.5 emission per liter of fuel
burned. The value is taken from Westphal et al.39
All the data used to compute the sustainability indicators
are presented in Table 5. Some of the references only provide
data for palm oil, not the assessed biofuel (HVO and FAME)
directly; in this case, the data must be converted from crude
palm oil (CPO) to each biofuel by considering the inventory
data to produce 1 L of biofuel from CPO.40,41 All the sub-
indicators have equal weighting, meaning that the weighting
of each sub-indicator is equal to the weight of each indicator
divided by the number of sub-indicators.
JC   f
xf Jf

(8)

GHG   f
x f  GWPf SCC   f
x f  CC f

(9)
(5)

xf
PM2.5   f
x f  pm f
(10)
LU   f Lf (6)

Multi-criteria decision making
WU   f
x f uj

(7) Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods provide
the necessary tools for decision makers to select the most

© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402 5
A Syauqi et al. Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel

Table 5. Sustainability sub-indicators data.

Parameter Unit Fuel
HVO-SMR HVO-BG HVO- FAME Petroleum
PVELC diesel
Economic
Levelized production Cost28,32 $/L 1.11 1.41 1.82 0.66 0.5
28
Import price $/L — — — — 0.55
Domestic Production44 % 100 100 100 100 36.82
Retail price42 $/L EURO-2: 0.67
EURO-4: 0.78
EURO-5: 0.83
Environment
Global warming potential28,32–35 kg CO2eq/L 1.86 1.1 0.97 2.41 3.12
3,32 2
Specific land use m /(L/year) 1.91 1.91 1.99 2.88 0.64
Specific water use32,36 m3/L 3.77 3.77 3.79 5.3 0.01
Social
Specific job creation3,43 Job/(kL/year) 0.097 0.097 0.097 0.147 0.049
Specific social conflict cost37 $/L 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08 0
39
Specific particulate matter emission Gram/L 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.45 0.86

appropriate decision among multiple alternatives in case vij  Fij  w j

of multiple conflicting criteria. One of the most important (12)
properties of MCDM methods is that they reflect the 3. The positive and negative ideal solutions A+ and A−,
priorities of the decision makers rather than searching for were determined. The positive ideal solution is the best
an optimal solution.45 One of the most popular MCDM possible value for each criterion and the negative ideal
techniques is TOPSIS. This was selected to perform multi- solution is the worst possible value for each criterion.
criteria decision making due to its sound logic, taking into 4. The Euclidean distance between each point and the
account all the alternatives, and its simplicity.46 positive (Si+) and negative ideal (Si-) solutions is
This study utilizes TOPSIS to select the best alternatives calculated using Eqns (13) and (14).
between a combination of hydrogen production technologies
and fuel blending alternatives (listed in Appendix S1 in
 v 
n 2
the supplementary material). The Technique for Order Si   ij  A (13)
j 1
Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution selects the optimal 
alternative by determining its Euclidean distance from the
positive and negative ideal points. The optimal solution is
 v 
n 2
that with the shortest Euclidian distance from the positive Si   ij  A (14)
j 1
ideal, and the greatest distance from the negative ideal.46,47 
The following steps were carried out to set up the TOPSIS
5. Finally, the closeness coefficient (Ci) is calculated using
procedure:
Eqn (15). The preferred solution is the alternative with
1. A normalized objective matrix (Fij) was constructed
the highest Ci value.
with i rows and j columns by applying Eqn (11).
Si 
fij Ci  (15)
Fij  Si   Si 
(11) 
 fij2


2. The weighted normalized objective matrix (vij) was

Sustainability index
constructed using Eqn (12). The weight is different for We also combine the sustainability sub-indicators mentioned
each scenarios that is presented in Table 3. above into sustainability index (SI). The sustainability index

6 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402
Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel
is used to quantify the sustainability of each fuel blending.
The sustainability index is constructed using Eqns (16)–(17).
In this case the sub-indicators are weighted equally, since
there are nine sub-indicators (sA) then each sub-indicators are
weighted 1/9 and then summed to construct the sustainability
index. However, due to each sub-indicators have different
value and units it needs to be normalized (SA). This study
utilizes min.–max. normalization, as this has already
had wide application in the construction sustainability
index.48–51 The preferred blending is chosen with the highest
sustainability index.
1 with superior results on an environmental and social level,
SI   A9
 SA

s A  smin
SA  production of HVO requires a smaller area than FAME. This
smax  smin
 fact has a significant impact on other criteria, for example, in
Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis is conducted on weighting on
sustainability preference and PVELC cost. The sensitivity
analysis measures how the impact of uncertainties of one or
more input variables can lead to uncertainties in the output
variables.52
The first sensitivity analysis examines sustainability
priorities. These strongly influence the amount of biofuel
blend in the diesel mix. The sensitivity analysis was
conducted by varying the weight of the main criteria in
each scenario to ± 40% relative to the baseline, which
has been mentioned in Table 3. Here, the purpose of the
sensitivity analysis is to study the preferred blending option
under different priorities of the decision maker, and how
much the decision maker values one of the sustainability
aspects, as the basis to determine the biofuel blending in the
diesel mix.
The second sensitivity analysis considers the effect of
PVELC cost reduction on the preferred hydrogen production
technology. From the assessed technologies, only PVELC
can still experience cost reduction as it is still an emerging
technology, whereas the other two technologies are more
mature.53 Recent studies have noted a significant drop in
the cost of PVELC technology,53–55 which also affects the
cost of HVO-PVELC. This study also wanted to explore
the possibility of adding HVO to the future diesel blend by
tackling its most challenging problem, which is the cost.
One of the biggest contributors to the high production cost
of HVO is the high cost of hydrogen production. From our
previous research,32 the cost of HVO-PVELC is expected to
© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402
A Syauqi et al.
drop significantly between 2020 and 2050. Expected future
costs are listed in Table 6.
Results and discussion
Blending portfolio scenario
The resulting blending and hydrogen production technologies
from the TOPSIS method are shown in Figure 1. The
blending of EURO-2 is dominated by petroleum diesel owing
to EURO-2’s lower sulfur standard. Hydrogenated vegetable
oil emerged as the primary biofuel blend in every scenario,
(16)
which offsets the economic upper hand that FAME has.
The superiority of HVO in terms of environmental and
social considerations can be attributed to the fact that the
(17)
the water use aspect. Less land means that less water is used
to irrigate the land. As the environmental and social impacts
of HVO are better than those of the other fuels, it is natural
to see that HVO has a higher percentage in the E2-ENV and
E2-SOC scenarios than in the E2-ECON scenario. In contrast
to the other EURO-2 scenarios, E2-SOC has FAME in the
blending of the diesel mix as FAME contributes to higher job
creation and fewer PM2.5 emissions. In terms of hydrogen
production preference, the SMR emerges as the preferred
technology for both the E2-ECON and E2-SOC scenarios
due to its significantly lower cost than the others. However, in
the environmental scenario, PVELC is the preferred hydrogen
production technology because it produces significantly less
GHG emissions than the others.
EURO-4 fuels have significantly lower sulfur content
than EURO-2 fuels. This factor contributes to the higher
penetration of biofuels in the fuel mix for all scenarios.
Figure 1 shows that blending for EURO-4 standards is still
dominated by HVO. The dominance of HVO in the blend
is still in agreement with the EURO-2 scenario; however,
because of its high lubricity, HVO cannot be blended with
petroleum diesel alone. To counteract this, FAME must be
introduced into the blend. The introduction of FAME also
reduces the production cost and hence results in better
Table 6. Future HVO production cost.
Year HVO-PVELC HVO-BG HVO-SMR
2020 1.82 1.41 1.11
2030 1.7 1.41 1.21
2040 1.52 1.41 1.28
2050 1.35 1.41 1.35
7
A Syauqi et al.
Figure 1. Blending result for each scenario in volume percentage for fuel blending and hydrogen production technology.
performance in the E4-ECON scenario. The selection of
hydrogen production technologies remains the same for the
EURO-4 standards, except for the E4-ENV scenario, because
the BG possesses slightly lower GHG emissions with less
water and land use and lower production costs.
For EURO-5 standards, standard petroleum diesel cannot
be used. This is because Indonesian refineries do not yet
have the capability to produce EURO-5 fuel, making it
impossible to obtain EURO-5 quality with the current
specification of fuel. This means that not all fuel blends
can be implemented for the EURO-5 standards. The only
solution left is to assume that to produce EURO-5 fuel,
the Indonesian refinery can produce ultra-low sulfur
diesel (ULSD). Based on research,56,57 the sulfur content of
ULSD is 15 ppm, and the price is 2.5% higher than that of
low-sulfur diesel, with the other specifications remaining
the same. In comparison with the EURO-4 scenarios, the
EURO-5 scenarios provide a lower biofuel share because of
the high quality of the ULSD.
Sensitivity analysis
Weighting sensitivity
Regardless of the fuel standard, the sensitivity analysis
showed a similar trend for each criterion. Figures 2–4 show
the results for EURO-2, EURO-4, and EURO-5 standards,
respectively. In the economic preference scenarios, the
results show that the more FAME that is contained in the fuel
mix, the more favorable it is toward the economic aspect.
8 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402
Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel
Biodiesel is chosen over HVO because the production cost
of FAME is much lower than that of HVO. In terms of
environmental preference, the more HVO is contained in
the mix, the more favorable it is toward the environment.
In the same vein, the use of PVELC as a mode of hydrogen
production is also most favorable for the environment.
Biodiesel tends to be preferred over HVO regarding the
social dimension of sustainability, as it creates more jobs and
produces fewer PM2.5 emissions.
The most interesting result comes from the sensitivity
analysis of the EURO-2 scenarios, which are shown in
Figure 2. In the +40% weight in the economic scenario, the
FAME contained in the blend becomes 30% biofuel, and
the rest is petroleum diesel (B-30). The blend provides a
good counterbalancing of cost and current account because
the additional FAME does not increase the production
cost significantly and gives a much lower deficit of current
account. This inline with the Indonesian government’s policy
on the implementation of B-30, with the goal to reduce the
current account deficit while maintaining cost. Current
policy states that the B-30 fuel mix is mandatory and, as
discussed earlier, that the blend heavily favors the economy.
The result of leaning too much toward the economy is that
other sustainability factors become neglected, as Table 7
suggests.
The other important result is shown in Figure 4, which
shows a sensitivity analysis of the EURO-5 scenario, which
is largely in agreement with previous results. The biofuel
blend is lower than the EURO-4 scenario because the
Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel A Syauqi et al.

Figure 2. Weighting sensitivity analysis for EURO-2 scenarios for fuel blending and hydrogen production technology.

Figure 3. Weighting sensitivity analysis for EURO-4 scenarios for fuel blending and hydrogen production technology.

petroleum diesel used in this scenario is ULSD, which has terms of economics, a mix with a lower blend of HVO and
a higher quality. This trend is quite like that of the EURO-2 higher FAME is favorable to the economy. The preferred
scenario, which also has high petroleum diesel blending. In hydrogen production technology also changes with an

© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402 9
A Syauqi et al.
Figure 4. Weighting sensitivity analysis for EURO-5 scenarios for fuel blending and hydrogen production technology.
increase in weightage. For a blend that is unfavorable to the
economy, PVELC was selected as the hydrogen production
technology. Contrastingly, as the weightage favors the
economy, the technology changes to BG or SMR, which has
the lowest cost.
Electrolysis from solar energy: cost
sensitivity
Cost reduction affects the preferred hydrogen production
technology in all scenarios. Table 8 gives the results of the
EURO-5 future blending scenarios from 2020 to 2050. The
results indicate that the hydrogen production technology
is different for every scenario. However, in the face of cost
reduction, PVELC tends to be the preferred method of
hydrogen production in the future, as it makes the HVO-
PVELC more competitive.
Sustainability index
From the sustainability index, the preferred blending option
is 50% HVO, 30% FAME, and 20% petroleum diesel for all
fuel specifications. It can also be inferred that the higher the
proportion of biofuel in blending, the higher the sustainability
index. The complete result can be found in Appendix S1 in
the supplementary material.
10 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402
Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel
Policy implication
Current policy
Indonesia has a long history of FAME implementation.
The government started regulating biofuels in 2006 after
Presidential Instruction No. 1/2006 on Biofuel Supply and
Utilization, following which the government mandated the
blend of the FAME in the diesel mix through the Indonesian
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resource Regulation No.
12/2015.58 The policy regulated the FAME mandatory blend
by 20% in 2016 and 30% by 2020.
Currently, Indonesia requires all diesel fuel to be blended
with 30% FAME (B-30). If the sustainability indicators of
B-20 and B-30 are being compared (See Table 7), then it
can be inferred that the increase in FAME in the blend has
a positive effect on the current account, GHG emissions,
particulate matter emissions, and job creation, while the other
parameters are worsened. This finding is in line with the main
intention of the government to reduce the current account
by implementing a blend with a higher proportion of FAME.
However, the increase in FAME blends also brings various
consequences in the form of higher production costs, land
and water use, and social conflict costs. It also conflicts with
edible oil production for cooking oil and makes it scarce in
Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel A Syauqi et al.

Table 8. Preferred future hydrogen production

technology in EURO-4 scenarios.
SOC
0.768
0.044

2.511
2.365
1.483
0.083

0.035
0.735
0.54
Scenario 2020 2030 2040 2050
0 E4-ECON SMR SMR PVELC PVELC
EURO-5

E4-ENV BG PVELC PVELC PVELC

0.864
0.124
0.034
2.313
1.515
1.146
0.069

0.022
0.797
ENV

0.42
E4-SOC SMR PVELC PVELC PVELC
ECON

the domestic market. The sustainability impact of current and

0.744
0.124

2.618
1.515
1.146
0.069

0.022
0.797
0.4
previous policies (B-30 and B-20) is proven to be worse than
0

any of the proposed scenarios in this study. From Table 7 it

can be inferred that the preferred option in any scenario is
SOC
0.784

0.004

2.932
1.707
0.093

0.044
0.694
2.44

0.45
better in terms of sustainability than B-30 and B-20, as the
0

sustainability index shows.

This high production cost gives rise to a potential economic
EURO-4

0.979

0.199
2.004
2.741

0.088

0.041
0.719

disadvantage for the B-30 blend. As FAME has a higher

ENV

1.61

0.55

production cost than petroleum diesel, the government

0

subsidizes FAME to reduce the price gap between FAME and

petroleum diesel. The subsidy comes from the palm-oil levy
ECON
0.829

0.049
2.385
2.741

0.088

0.041
0.719
1.61

0.53

based on the scheme (Figure 5), which subsidizes the FAME

0

from the levy of palm-oil exports. The funds collected from

this export levy are regulated by the Indonesia Palm Oil Estate
SOC
0.768
0.044

2.511
2.365
1.483
0.083

0.035
0.735

Fund Management Agency (BPDPKS). The BPDPKS regulates

0.44

the levy of palm oil by distributing funds for subsidies and

0

other expenses including palm oil research and development,

EURO-2

and the improvement of palm oil industrial infrastructure.

0.962

0.182
2.371
1.332
1.109
0.066

0.805
ENV

0.15

0.02

0.45

However, most of the levy fund ends in the biofuel subsidy,10,58

Table 7. Sustainability aspect comparison of B-30 and scenarios.

which means that palm oil is self-subsidizing.

In recent years, palm oil funds have been significantly
ECON
0.683
0.177
0.013
2.745
2.276
1.501
0.064

0.017
0.812

depleted. This happened as a result of the different structures of

0.4

FAME and petroleum diesel subsidies in Indonesia. While the

petroleum diesel subsidy is certain, with the amount decided
by the government at the start of every fiscal year, the FAME
B-30

0.548
0.177

1.712

0.079

0.025
0.737
2.91

1.31

subsidy depends on the export levy whose value is uncertain

0.4
0

because the levy is only imposed when the palm oil price is
above a certain threshold. The uncertainty creates the possibility
B-20

0.532

2.982
1.145
1.085
0.069

0.017
0.728

of a time when the levy income is not sufficient to subsidize the

0.23

0.38

FAME. This, in turn, may force the government to subsidize

0

fuel from the national budget, a situation that occurred in 2020,

Kg CO2eq/L

m2/(L/year)

when the government injected IDR 2.78 trillion (approximately

Job/(kL/
Unit

Unitless
Gram/L

200 million USD) into the fuel subsidy.10

year)
m /L
$/L
$/L
$/L

$/L

Other sustainability problems can arise from the increase

3

in the FAME mandatory blend, which leads to an increase in

Levelized production cost

land use. This increase affects water use and social conflict
costs. For example, the large amount of land used by palm-oil
Sustainability index
Social conflict cost
Burden to society

plantations has been criticized as one of the reasons for the

Current account

PM2.5 emission
GHG emission

high deforestation rate.59,60 As implementation of FAME-

Job creation
Parameter

Water use

blending mandates increases as an integral part of current

Land use

and expected future policy, there remains a serious potential

for an increase in the deforestation rate. As such, the higher

© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402 11
A Syauqi et al.
Figure 5. Indonesia FAME subsidy scheme.
implementation of the FAME blending mandates has several
sustainability consequences.
In addition to sustainability challenges, technical challenges
in the supply chain and storage of FAME have emerged
as one of the most concerning problems to be addressed.
There have been numerous reports stating that a high FAME
blend leads to problems in engine and storage facilities.61,62
Studies have shown that a high FAME blend leads to higher
fuel consumption, engine blockage, and the requirement for
frequent fuel filter replacements.63 High fuel consumption
is an inherent problem due to FAME’s low heating value.
On the other hand, engine blockage and frequent fuel filter
replacement problems may arise due to the loose Indonesian
National Standard (SNI) for FAME blends, especially in terms
of the standard of precipitate limit in the fuel.64
Furthermore, in storage and supply-chain activities,
oxidation stability and easy absorption of water are the main
concerns. Thus, the FAME blend must be stored in special
storage that complies with strict regulations to prevent
oxidation and water absorption.65,66 However, there is a lack
of supervision regarding the standard practice of storing
FAME blends in gas stations. This can raise concerns about
the quality of the fuel bought by consumers.
Policy recommendation
Despite the various negative consequences of the
implementation of B-20 and B-30, the Indonesian
government considered the program to be successful. This
12 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402
Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel
led to a discussion on raising the biofuel blend in the diesel
mix but there have been no regulations issued that have
mentioned future biofuel blends. Still, some studies have set
the B-50 scenario (50% FAME and 50% petroleum diesel)
as a future possibility based on recent developments.10,67
Nevertheless, as shown in Table 9, the B-50 fuel does
not meet the standards of any fuel specification. This is
because B-50 exceeds the density specification for all the
fuel standards and does not comply with the EURO-4 and
EURO-5 sulfur content standards. This finding is contrary
to the Indonesian government’s plan to gradually increase
the fuel standard from EURO-2 to EURO-5 shortly,68
meaning it should not be introduced as a possible future
fuel mix.
To offset the disadvantages of the FAME blending policy,
this study proposes adding HVO to the blend. Hydrogenated
vegetable oil performs better in terms of land use, water use,
GHG emissions, and social conflict cost, which combats
the sustainability problems that may arise if a high FAME
blending mandate is introduced. Hydrogenated vegetable oil
also does not have technical issues during transportation and
storage,64,12 meaning that the technical issues faced by FAME
in the supply chain and storage are eliminated. To date,
Indonesia has tested the co-production of petroleum diesel
and HVO in a pilot plant with a capacity of 1200 barrels/
day of HVO in 2020.69 It remains a possibility that HVO will
be produced and mandated as a biofuel mix in the future.
However, HVO suffers from disadvantages over FAME in the
Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel
Table 9. Comparison of B-50 specification to EURO fuel standards.
Parameter Unit B-50
Min
Cetane number 60.08
3
Density kg/m 850.3 815
Viscosity mm2/s 3.4
Sulfur content ppm 61.9
Lubricity Micron 239
Water content mg/kg 167
Bold text indicates the fuel do not meet the standard
form of high production costs. Hence, combining the two
biofuels can offset the disadvantages of each other.
The advantages of adding HVO and FAME to the diesel mix
in terms of sustainability can be investigated by comparing
the current blending policy (B-30) with the future scenarios
offered. Currently, Indonesia’s diesel fuel blending tends to
prioritize economic considerations. However, adding a mix of
HVO and FAME to the blend can increase the performance
in other aspects of sustainability. In general, all the scenarios
performed worse than B-30 in terms of economics but most
of the scenarios perform better in social and environmental
aspects. Hence, mixing HVO and FAME in the blend can
increase the sustainability of the fuel mix.
Current blending policy, which favors the economy, should
be changed to give equal importance to environmental and
social sustainability. This study suggest the blending fuel
policy by considering sustainability aspect and fuel quality
standard.
Conclusion
This study presented a selection of the most sustainable
hydrogen production technology and biofuel blends in
a diesel mix. The study divided sustainability into three
different categories – economic, environmental, and social
– and explored nine scenarios that consider fuel quality
and sustainability priorities. Sensitivity analysis and policy
analysis were added. The results show that scenarios that
prioritize economic considerations tend to demand a higher
FAME blend, whereas higher HVO-PVELC blending is
ideal for scenarios that prioritize the environment. Finally,
scenarios prioritizing social sustainability tend to be
characterized by higher biofuel blending. The weighting
sensitivity analysis reveals that the weighting for all indicators
except for the EURO-4 scenarios is sensitive. It also reveals
that heavily prioritizing the economy is in line with the
current biofuel blending policy. Prioritizing the environment
© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402
A Syauqi et al.
EURO-2 EURO-4 EURO-5
Max Min Max Min Max
51 — 53 — 53 —
840 815 840 815 845
2 4 2 4 2 4
— 500 — 50 — 10
— 460 — 460 — 460
— 200 — 200 — 200
means adding a greater proportion of HVO and using PVELC
to produce hydrogen for HVO. This study also assessed the
possibility of using a sustainability index to combine all the
sustainability aspects and selecting and ranking the best
blending and hydrogen production technology alternatives
based on sustainability. The result of the sustainability index
reveals that the higher the biofuel blend the higher the
sustainability index, and the preferred blending option is 50%
HVO, 30% FAME, and 20% petroleum diesel, with PVELC
as the hydrogen production technology. Based on the future
PVELC cost scenario, regardless of the sustainability aspect
priorities, PVELC should become the preferred hydrogen
production technology by no later than 2040. For the biofuel
blending policy, a high FAME blending mandate in the future
will not be beneficial and may even hurt the economy, which
contradicts the main intention of the Indonesian government.
Finally, it suggests that the biofuel policy direction should
focus more on combining HVO and FAME, to offset each
other’s disadvantages.
References
1. Jeswani HK, Chilvers A and Azapagic A, Environmental
sustainability of biofuels: a review. Proc R Soc A Math Phys
Eng Sci [Internet] 476:1–19 (2243):20200351 (2020) Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0351.
2. Obidzinski K, Andriani R, Komarudin H and Andrianto A,
Environmental and social impacts of oil palm plantations
and their implications for biofuel production in Indonesia.
Ecol Soc [Internet] 17(1) (2012) Available from: https://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss1/art25/.
3. TAMSI. Facts of Indonesian Palm Oil [Internet]. Board of
Indonesia Palm Oil, Jakarta; 2010. Available from: https://
www.academia.edu/13217975/Fact_of_Indonesian_Oil_Palm
4. Janda K, Kristoufek L, Zilberman D. Biofuels: policies and
impacts. Agric Econ (Země dě lská Ekon [Internet]. 2012 58(No.
8):372–86. Available from: http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/
web/agricecon.htm?volume=58&firstPage=372&type=publish
edArticle
5. Pacheco P, Gnych S, Dermawan A, Komarudin H, Okarda B.
The palm oil global value chain: implications for economic
13
A Syauqi et al.
growth and social and environmental sustainability [internet].
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR); 2017.
Available from: http://www.cifor.org/library/6405/the-palm-oil-
global-value-chain-implications-for-economic-growth-and-
socialand-environmental-sustainability/
6. Biofuels Reform. Social impact of biofuels [internet]. 2020
[cited 2021 May 16]. Available from: https://biofuelsreform.org/
social-impact-of-biofuels.html
7. Rokhim R, Januari AD, Atik U, Shara S, Rusdayanti
N. Palm oil social conflict resolution and mediation
in Jambi. Serpa S, editor. Cogent Soc Sci [Internet].
2020;6(1):1812831. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331
1886.2020.1812831
8. Abram NK, Meijaard E, Wilson KA, Davis JT, Wells JA,
Ancrenaz M et al., Oil palm–community conflict mapping in
Indonesia: a case for better community liaison in planning for
development initiatives. Appl Geogr 78:33–44 (2017).
9. USDA foreign agriculture service. USDA readout from Sino-
U.S. Advanced Biofuels Forum Beijing, pp. 1–3 2010.
10. Halimatussadiah A, Nainggolan D, Yui S, Moeis FR and
Siregar AA, Progressive biodiesel policy in Indonesia: does
the Government’s economic proposition hold? Renew
Sustain Energy Rev [Internet] 150:111431 (2021) Available
from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1364032121007140.
11. IEA. Renewables 2020 [Internet]. Paris; 2020. Available from:
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020
12. Garraín D, Herrera I, Lago C, Lechón Y and Sáez R, Renewable
diesel fuel from processing of vegetable oil in Hydrotreatment
units: theoretical compliance with European Directive 2009/28/
EC and ongoing projects in Spain. Smart Grid Renew Energy
[Internet] 01(02):70–73 (2010) Available from: http://www.scirp.
org/journal/doi.aspx?DOI=10.4236/sgre.2010.12011.
13. Norouzi N, Hydrogen production in the light of sustainability:
a comparative study on the hydrogen production
technologies using the sustainability index assessment
method. Nucl Eng Technol [Internet] 1288–1294 (2021)
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S1738573321005738.
14. Soam S and Hillman K, Factors influencing the environmental
sustainability and growth of hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO)
in Sweden. Bioresour Technol Reports [Internet] 7:100244
(2019) Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2589014X19301343.
15. Arvidsson R, Persson S, Fröling M and Svanström M,
Life cycle assessment of hydrotreated vegetable oil from
rape, oil palm and Jatropha. J Clean Prod [Internet] 19(2):129–
137 (2011) Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0959652610000466.
16. Glensor K, Muñoz B.MR. Life-Cycle Assessment of Brazilian
Transport Biofuel and Electrification Pathways Vol. 11,
Sustainability . 2019.
17. Adler PR, Del Grosso SJ and Parton WJ, Life-cycle
assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for BIOENERGY
cropping systems. Ecol Appl [Internet] 17(3):675–691 (2007)
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1890/05-2018.
18. Ramos M, Dias AP, Puna JF, Gomes J, Bordado JC. Biodiesel
production processes and sustainable raw materials Vol. 12,
Energies. 2019.
19. Silalertruksa T and Gheewala SH, Environmental sustainability
assessment of palm biodiesel production in Thailand. Energy
[Internet]. 43(1):306–314 (2012) Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.04.025.
20. Yang Y, Zhang B, Cheng J and Pu S, Socio-economic impacts
of algae-derived biodiesel industrial development in China:
14 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402
Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel
an input–output analysis. Algal Res [Internet] 9:74–81 (2015)
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2211926415000363.
21. Cabrera-Jiménez R, Mateo-Sanz JM, Gavaldà J, Jiménez
L and Pozo C, Comparing biofuels through the lens of
sustainability: a data envelopment analysis approach.
Appl Energy [Internet] 307:118201 (2022) Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0306261921014690.
22. Suarez-Bertoa R, Kousoulidou M, Clairotte M, Giechaskiel B,
Nuottimäki J, Sarjovaara T et al., Impact of HVO blends on
modern diesel passenger cars emissions during real world
operation. Fuel [Internet] 235:1427–1435 (2019) Available
from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0016236118313929.
23. Greenea. Is HVO the Holy Grail of the world biodiesel market?
- Greenea [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2021 May 16]. Available from:
http://www.greenea.com/publication/is-hvo-the-holy-grail-of-
the-world-biodiesel-market/
24. Delrue F, Setier PA, Sahut C, Cournac L, Roubaud A, Peltier
G et al., An economic, sustainability, and energetic model
of biodiesel production from microalgae. Bioresour Technol
[Internet] 111:191–200 (2012) Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.020.
25. Dinh LTT, Guo Y and Mannan MS, Sustainability evaluation
of biodiesel production using multicriteria decision-making.
Environ Prog Sustain Energy [Internet] 28(1):38–46 (2009)
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10335.
26. Anwar M, Biodiesel feedstocks selection strategies based on
economic, technical, and sustainable aspects. Fuel [Internet]
283((July 2020)):119204 (2021) Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119204.
27. Safarian S, Sattari S and Hamidzadeh Z, Sustainability
assessment of biodiesel supply chain from various biomasses
and conversion technologies. Biophys Econ Resour Qual
3(2):1–15 (2018).
28. Mustika S and Purwanto WW, Multi-objective optimization
of blending strategy of {FAME}, {HVO}, and petroleum
diesel. {IOP} Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng [Internet] 1143(1):12046
(2021) Available from: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-
899x/1143/1/012046.
29. European Union. DIRECTIVE 2009/30/EC OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL [Internet]. 2009.
Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0030
30. Zhmud B. VIscosity Blending Equation. Lube Tech. The
European Lubricants Industry Magazine, Buckinghamshire,
UK 93 pp.22–27 2014.
31. Jiang S, Optimization of Diesel and Gasoline Blending
Operations [Internet]. The University of Manchester,
Manchester, UK (2016) Available from: https://www.escholar.
manchester.ac.uk/jrul/item/?pid=uk-ac-man-scw:302064.
32. Vivadinar AH and Purwanto WW, Techno-enviro-economic
study of hydrogenated vegetable oil production from crude
palm oil and renewable hydrogen. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci
Eng [Internet] 1143(1):012045 (2021) Available from: https://
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/1143/1/012045.
33. Nikander S. GREENHOUSE GAS AND ENERGY INTENSITY
OF PRODUCT CHAIN: CASE TRANSPORT BIOFUEL. 2008.
34. Restianti YY and Gheewala SH, Life cycle assessment of
gasoline in Indonesia. Int J Life Cycle Assess [Internet]
17(4):402–408 (2012) Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-011-0372-9.
35. Harsono SS, Prochnow A, Grundmann P, Hansen A and
Hallmann C, Energy balances and greenhouse gas emissions
Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel
of palm oil biodiesel in Indonesia. GCB Bioenergy [Internet]
4(2):213–228 (2012) Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1757-1707.2011.01118.x.
36. Safitri L, Hermantoro H, Purboseno S, Kautsar V, Saptomo
SK, Kurniawan A. Water footprint and crop water usage of oil
palm (Eleasis guineensis) in Central Kalimantan: environmental
sustainability indicators for different crop age and soil
conditions. Vol. 11, Water . 2019.
37. Virginia B, Iqbal M, Limberg G, Prasodjo R, Sileuw A and
Schweithelm J, The cost of social conflict in oil palm in
Indonesia [internet]. Jakarta (2016) Available from: https://
daemeter.org/new/uploads/20170121193336.The_Cost_of_
Conflict_in_Oil_Palm_Indonesia_.pdf.
̇ Altinişik K and Keskin A, The pollutant emissions
38. Reşitoğlu IA,
from diesel-engine vehicles and exhaust aftertreatment
systems. Clean Technol Environ Policy [Internet] 17(1):15–27
(2015) Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-
0793-9.
39. Westphal GA, Krahl J, Munack A, Rosenkranz N, Schröder
O, Schaak J et al., Combustion of Hydrotreated vegetable
oil and Jatropha methyl Ester in a heavy duty engine:
emissions and bacterial mutagenicity. Environ Sci Technol
[Internet] 47(11):6038–6046 (2013) Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1021/es400518d.
40. Yan M, Hantoko D, Susanto H, Ardy A, Waluyo J, Weng Z
et al., Hydrothermal treatment of empty fruit bunch and
its pyrolysis characteristics. Biomass Convers Biorefinery
[Internet] 9(4):709–717 (2019) Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13399-019-00382-9.
41. Permpool N, Ghani HU and Gheewala SH, An in-depth
environmental sustainability analysis of conventional and
advanced bio-based diesels in Thailand. Sustainability
12:1–16 (2020).
42. Pertamina. Price and Locations | Pertamina Fuels [Internet].
2021 [cited 2021 Sep 29]. Available from: https://www.
pertaminafuels.com/harga-dan-lokasi
43. IRENA. Renewable energy and jobs – annual review 2020
[internet]. Abu Dhabi; 2020. Available from: https://www.irena.
org/publications/2020/Sep/Renewable-Energy-and-Jobs-
Annual-Review-2020
44. Kementrian ESDM. Handbook of Energy & Economic Statistics
of Indonesia (HEESI) [Internet]. Jakarta; 2020. Available from:
https://www.esdm.go.id/en/publication/handbook-of-energy-
economic-statistics-of-indonesia-heesi
45. Çelikbilek Y and Tüysüz F, An in-depth review of theory of
the TOPSIS method: an experimental analysis. J Manag Anal
[Internet] 7(2):281–300 (2020) Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1080/23270012.2020.1748528.
46. Atmayudha A, Syauqi A and Purwanto WW, Green logistics
of crude oil transportation: a multi-objective optimization
approach. Clean Logist Supply Chain [Internet] 1:100002
(2021) Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2772390921000020.
47. Surury F, Syauqi A and Purwanto WW, Multi-objective
optimization of petroleum product logistics in eastern
Indonesia region. Asian J Shipp Logist [Internet] 37:220–230
(2021) Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2092521221000225.
48. Erahman QF, Purwanto WW, Sudibandriyo M and Hidayatno
A, An assessment of Indonesia’s energy security index and
comparison with seventy countries. Energy [Internet] 111:364–
376 (2016) Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0360544216307198.
49. Kamsamrong J and Sorapipatana C, An assessment of energy
security in Thailand’s power generation. Sustain Energy
© 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402
A Syauqi et al.
Technol Assessments [Internet] 7:45–54 (2014) Available
from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2213138814000307.
50. Martchamadol J and Kumar S, The aggregated energy
security performance indicator (AESPI) at national and
provincial level. Appl Energy [Internet]. 127:219–238 (2014)
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0306261914003985.
51. Wu G, Liu L-C, Han Z-Y and Wei Y-M, Climate protection and
China’s energy security: win–win or tradeoff. Appl Energy
[Internet] 97:157–163 (2012) Available from: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261911007677.
52. Pichery C, Sensitivity Analysis, in Wexler PBT-E of T, ed. by
Third E. Academic Press, Oxford, pp. 236–237 (2014) Available
from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
B9780123864543004310.
53. Ning Asih SA, Syauqi A and Purwanto WW, Techno-enviro-
economic analysis of integrated direct chemical looping
coal-based power generation and methanol synthesis using
renewable hydrogen. J CO2 Util [Internet] 54:101768 (2021)
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2212982021003358.
54. Syauqi A, Pratama YW, Purwanto WW. Sustainable Energy
System in the Archipelagic Country: Challenges and
Opportunities BT - Energy Systems Evaluation (Volume 1). In:
Ren J, editor. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021.
p. 49–69.
55. IEA, The Future of Hydrogen [Internet]. International Energy
Agency, Paris (2019) [cited 2021 Jul 13]. Available from: https://
www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogen.
56. Moser B and Vaughn S, Evaluation of alkyl esters from Camelina
sativa oil as biodiesel and as blend components in ultra low-
sulfur diesel fuel. Bioresour Technol 101(2):646–653 (2010).
57. U.S. EIA. U.S. Gasoline and Diesel Retail Prices [Internet].
2021 [cited 2021 Jul 8]. Available from: https://www.eia.gov/
dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm
58. Kharina A, Malins C, Beijing SS, Berlin |, Brussels |, San |, et
al. Biofuels policy in Indonesia: Overview and status report
[Internet]. Washington D.C.; 2016 [cited 2021 Jul 14]. Available
from: www.theicct.org
59. Cisneros E, Kis-Katos K and Nuryartono N, Palm oil and the
politics of deforestation in Indonesia. J Environ Econ Manage
[Internet] 108:102453 (2021) Available from: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009506962100036X.
60. Mosnier A, Boere E, Reumann A, Yowargana P, Pirker J,
Havlik P, et al. Palm oil and likely futures: Assessing the
potential impacts of zero deforestation commitments and a
moratorium on large-scale oil palm plantations in Indonesia
[Internet]. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR);
2017. Available from: http://www.cifor.org/library/6468/
palm-oil-and-likely-futures-assessing-the-potential-impacts-
of-zero-deforestation-commitments-and-a-moratorium-on-
large-scale-oil-palm-plantations-in-indonesia/
61. Komariah LN, Hadiah F, Aprianjaya F and Nevriadi F, Biodiesel
effects on fuel filter; assessment of clogging characteristics.
J Phys Conf Ser [Internet] 1095:12017 (2018) Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1095/1/012017.
62. Christensen E and McCormick RL, Long-term storage
stability of biodiesel and biodiesel blends. Fuel Process
Technol [Internet] 128:339–348 (2014) Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0378382014003361.
63. Xue J, Grift TE and Hansen AC, Effect of biodiesel on engine
performances and emissions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
15:1098–1116 (2010).
15
A Syauqi et al. Modeling and Analysis: Blending FAME, HVO, and petroleum diesel

64. Paryanto I, Prakoso T, Suyono EA and Gozan M,

Determination of the upper limit of monoglyceride content in Widodo Wahyu Purwanto
biodiesel for B30 implementation based on the measurement Widodo Wahyu Purwanto is a
of the precipitate in a biodiesel–Petrodiesel fuel blend (BXX).
Professor of Sustainable Energy
Fuel [Internet] 258:116104 (2019) Available from: https://www.
in the Department of Chemical
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236119314589.
65. Alleman TL, McCormick RL, Christensen ED, Fioroni G, Engineering at Universitas Indonesia.
Moriart K and Yanowitz J, Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide He is currently the Head of the
(Fifth Edition). U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C. Master Program in Energy Systems
(2016). Engineering and the Director of the
66. Du Plessis LM, De Villiers JBM and Van Der Walt WH, research cluster for Sustainable Energy Systems and
Stability studies on methyl and ethyl fatty acid esters Policy. His research interest includes sustainable energy,
of sunflowerseed oil. J Am Oil Chem Soc [Internet] process systems modeling, and policy analysis.
62(4):748–752 (1985) Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF03028746.
67. Chandra Setiawan I and Indarto D, Quantitative analysis of
automobile sector in Indonesian automotive roadmap for
achieving national oil and CO2 emission reduction targets
by 2030. Energy Policy [Internet] 150:112135 (2021) Available Appendix
from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301421521000045.
68. Ministry of Industry, Roadmap on low carbon emission
vehicle. Jakarta, pp. 1–15 (2019).
CN blend   f
x f  CN f

(A1)
69. Pertamina. After D-100, Pertamina Targets to Test Green Avtur
Production at The End of 2020 | Pertamina [Internet]. 2020
[cited 2021 Jul 26]. Available from: https://www.pertamina.
com/en/news-room/news-release/after-d-100-pertamina-
blend   f
yf f

(A2)
targets-to-test-green-avtur-production-at-the-end-of-2020

SCblend   f
y f  SC f

(A3)
Ahmad Syauqi
Ahmad Syauqi is a lecturer in the
Department of Chemical Engineering
at Universitas Indonesia. He serves
WCblend   f
y f  WC f

(A4)

as a member of the department's

sustainable energy systems research
group. His research interest focus Lblend   f
y f Lf
(A5)
on sustainable energy and process 
systems engineering.

blend   f
y f   1f/3

(A6)

Alin Halimatussadiah
Dr Alin Halimatussadiah is an active
lecturer at the Faculty of Economics
and Business – Universitas Indonesia.
Since 2017, she has been the head
of the Environmental Economics
Research Group at the Institute of
Economic and Social Research. Her
research focuses on renewable energy economics and
policy, sustainable waste management, sustainable
fisheries management, disaster risk reduction, climate
finance, and green growth.

16 © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. (2022); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2402