25

Journal of Oil Palm, Environment & Health An official publication of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC)

Journal of Oil Palm, Environment & Health 2015, 6:25-41 doi:10.5366/jope.2015.03

ESTIMATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FOR PALM OIL BIODIESEL PRODUCTION: A REVIEW AND CASE STUDY WITHIN THE COUNCIL DIRECTIVES 2009/28/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Mathews J and Ardiyanto A Abstract

The paper focuses on land cultivated with oil palm prior to 1st January 2008 and the production pathways of biofuel or bio liquid, based on current production practices. The rationale and guideline for the calculation of greenhouse gas emission given in this paper may benefit oil palm growers who planted oil palm prior to 1st January 2008. This could assist in the subsequent sale of palm oil to the European market. A case study carried out from the supplying estate, palm oil milling and effluent treatment under open pond system as well as refining; up to the biofuel production stage indicates that the GHG saving in palm oil biofuel for transportation is 43.95%. With methane capture and flaring, the GHG savings can increase to 66.95%.

1. Introduction

The European Council’s Directive 2009/28/EC has been effective since 25th June 2009 with the objective of promoting the use of renewable energy produced from sustainable resources1. The major aims of the Directive are to promote and achieve 20% share of gross energy consumption (e.g. electricity, heating cooling etc.) and 10% stake of energy from renewable sources, for use in transportation within the European Union Member States by 2020. In order to achieve the targets and incentives, Article 17 of the Directive outlines the sustainability criteria for the EU Member States to measure compliance to their national targets, obligation to renewable energy and financial eligibility and support for consumption

of biofuel and bio liquids. Article 19 of the Directive elaborates on the calculation of the greenhouse gas emission in the biofuel and bio-liquid life cycle pathways, while Appendix V, Part C provides the general guideline for the method in calculating greenhouse gas emission saving based on default values, typical values or a combination of both. Regardless of whether the raw materials are cultivated in or outside the territories of the European community, the energy obtained from biofuels and bio-liquids are to fulfil the sustainability criteria stipulated in Article 17 such as: Key words Life cycle assessment, production pathway, biofuel, bio liquids, palm oil, GHG JOPEH 2015, 6:25-41

Address: P.T.Bumitama Gunajaya Agro Research Centre, Jln Melawai Raya No.10, Jakarta 12160, Indonesia

Email: Mathews J (joshua.mathews@bumitama.com or joshmathews20@gmail.com)

Ardiyanto A (adhy_ardianto@yahoo.co.id)

Published: 18/5/15 Received: 12/2/15 Accepted: 17/4/15

© 2015 Joshua Mathews This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Review Open Access

26

(i) The calculated greenhouse gas (GHG) saving from the raw material to the finished product of biodiesel has to be at least 35%. However, effective 1st January 2017, the baseline GHG saving will be raised to 50% whilst, from 1st January 2018, the GHG saving is to be further raised to 60% for biofuels or bio-liquids produced on or after 1st January 2017.

(ii) Raw material for biofuels or bio-liquids shall not be obtained from lands with high biodiversity value on or after 1st January 2008. Such lands, include primary forest, government protected land, protected land for endangered, rare and threatened (ERT) ecosystems or species recognized by governmental, inter-governmental organizations, or International Union for Conservation of Nature, grasslands of high bio-diversity, wetlands containing high carbon stock, continuous forested land spanning more than one hectare with trees higher than 5 meters and canopy cover more than 30% or trees able to reach those thresholds in-situ or land spanning more than one hectare with trees higher than 5 meters and canopy cover of between 10% and 30% or trees able to reach those thresholds in situ.

(iii) Raw materials for biofuels and bio-liquids shall not be obtained from peat land after January 2008, unless evidence is provided that the cultivation of raw materials has preserved without drainage of its original state.

(iv) The raw materials of biofuel and bio-liquid have to be produced sustainably, taking into consideration environmental factors that are critical in protecting soil, water and air, and a responsible approach to social concerns. Member States are not to refuse other sustainability schemes for the production of biofuels and bio-liquids developed in line with this Directive.

Calculations for GHG emissions given in Article 19 of the Directive provides the option of using typical or default values in the production pathway as laid out in Part A of Annex V. In the production of biodiesel from palm oil (the mode of processing not specified), the typical GHG emission savings value is 36%, while default value is 19%. The biodiesel produced from palm oil with methane capture in the palm oil mill has GHG savings of 62%, while the default value is 56%. The other option of calculation is to use actual value

calculated as per Part C of Annex V or use actual values and some disaggregated default values of Part D and E of the Annex V of the Directive. However, for all typical and default values, the net carbon emissions from land use change is considered as zero.

Phenolt and Vietez2 recently challenged the typical and default values in the supply chain as mentioned in the EU’s directive exposing the European Union and Commission to charges of trade discrimination and limiting the ability of Member States to their legal binding of reducing GHG emission. Stichnothe3 was of the opinion that the current default value mentioned in the Directive does not represent common management practices of palm oil plantations and oil mills and there is a need for calculating GHG saving by including all fugitive emissions from palm residues (pruned leaves and empty fruit bunches) and waste water. The present paper focuses on point 83 of the Directive, that is the scientific contribution of the producer in the major life cycle assessment of palm oil produced as raw material for biodiesel, the practical way of ground operational management and information gathering approaches required in the GHG computation. The present paper is confined mainly to the study on the emissions in plantation field operations, milling for crude palm oil in the palm oil mill, refining of crude palm oil and esterification of refined palm oil for the production of biodiesel for lands cultivated for the production of raw material prior to 1st January 2008.

2. Methodology of GHG calculation

The method of GHG calculation as indicated in Part C of the Annex V of the directive and in relation to palm oil production is as follows;

E= eec+ e1 + ep + etd + eu -esca-eccs-eccr-eee,

(the abbreviations of which are summarized in

Table 1).

However, in the present paper land use change e1 will not be dwelled upon. For more information on the land use change, the EU commission’s decision on 10th June 2010 on guidelines on calculation of land carbon stocks for the purpose of Annex V of Directive 2009/28/EC can be referred to4. The global warming potential (GWP) value for Methane (CH4) is 23, Nitrous oxide (N2O) is 296 and for

27

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is 1. All the greenhouse gas emissions from the fuels “E” is expressed in grams of CO2 equivalent per Mega Joule (gm CO2eq /MJ). Should there be any by-products developed during the production cycle, an allocation is to be made according to the by-products in terms of expected energy from it. The GHG savings is the difference in terms of percentage of total emissions of the fossil fuel comparator (EF) from total emission from biofuel or bio-liquid (EB)

GHG savings= ((EF-EB)/EF) x 100

The EU fossil fuel comparator values for transport is 83.8, electricity is 91.0, combined heat and power (CHP) is 85.0 and heat production is 77.0 CO2eq/MJ.

3. Production pathway of biodiesel from

palm oil with emission factors

The production pathway of biodiesel from palm oil and the operations that emit GHG in the cultivation, processing to CPO, refining and esterification are shown in Figure 1. 3.1. GHG Emissions in oil palm cultivation

3.1.1. Fertilizers

Fertilizer is the major contributor of GHG emission in oil palm field cultivation. Once the palms have reached maturity in fresh fruit bunch (FFB) production, many of the plantation companies opt to use cost effective straight fertilizers. The compound fertilizers are normally used in matured palms, only if special attention is required due to poor palm growth or at immature palm growth stage. The major straight fertilizers used are Urea, Ammonium Sulphate (AS) as nitrogenous source, Rock Phosphate (RP) as phosphatic form, Muriate of Potash (MOP) as potassic source, Kieserite as magnesium and Borate as boron nutrient. CO2 emissions are incurred in the production of fertilizers and during the excavation and treatment of fertilizers such as RP, MOP, Kieserite and Borate. The CO2 emission per kg fertilizer at the first stage of production with various technological and locality reports of processing, mining and beneficiation is summarised in Table 2.

Amongst all the fertilizers, nitrogenous fertilizers have the highest CO2 emissions in the fertilizer production cycle. The variations in the CO2 emissions depends on the geographical locations, the source of energy

utilized in the production, the regions and types of sourcing for raw material and the methods used in the production plants. Amongst the 3 types of nitrogenous fertilizer, Ammonium nitrate shows the highest CO2 emissions, as the fertilizer requires more energy for the production of ammonia and nitric acid, of which in nitric acid the emission of nitrous oxide is calculated. However, some companies like Hydro Agri5 and Yara10 have developed N2O abatement in the process, which helps to reduce N2O emissions by 70 to 85%. Hence it can be taken into consideration that if modern technology is implemented, the emission of CO2 gas can be reduced to as low as 1.05 kg per Kg AN5,10. However, ammonium nitrate is not a widely preferred fertilizer in the oil palm producing countries. Natural gas is the main raw material for ammonia production in Western Europe, North America and Middle East, while 80% of China’s and 50% of India’s ammonia production depends on coal and oil, respectively5. Leelgard et al6 has reported a similar emission during urea production in the Middle East of 0.73 kg CO2eq per kg urea, while from China, the emission was at least 3 times higher than in the Middle East due to the raw materials used, of which 80% was from coal and 20% from natural gas6. Additional emission of CO2 was reported while transporting natural gas in the United Kingdom and Netherlands (Western Europe) estimated to be about 2 to 3 kg CO2eq per GJ through leaks and cost of energy in transportation, while in East and South European countries such emissions may be as high as 23 kg CO2eq per GJ7. Such emissions occurring during the transportation of raw material are included in the calculation of the production of fertilizers7. Yasuhiko et al.,13 reviewed the CO2 emissions in 2008 from 5 urea plants of Toyo Engineering and compared them to emissions from the 1950s and 1960s production13. The reduction of CO2 was achieved by replacing inefficient machineries with those of equivalent capacities, revamping or retrofitting conventional plants with energy saving technologies. CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from flue gas, off gases from the chemical plants, blast furnaces etc. are reused as feedstock to produce urea.

28

Table 1: Abbreviation and description of the emission calculation1

Abbreviation Description

E Total emissions from the raw materials herein after reference to “palm oil” meant for the production of biofuel or bio-liquid.

eec Emissions from the field cultivation and production of fresh fruit bunches (FFB) for the palm oil.

e1

Annualized emissions from carbon stock changes caused by land use change calculated by dividing total emissions equally over 20 years. e1= (CSR –CSA) X 3.664 (in terms of CO2) X 1/20 X 1/P-eB

“CSR” is carbon stock per unit area with reference to land use (measured in mass carbon per unit area including both soil and vegetation) in January 2008 or 20 years before the raw material was obtained, which ever was the later. “CSA” is the carbon stock per unit area associated with actual land use in oil palm cultivation (measured in mass of carbon per unit area including both soil and vegetation). In the cases where the carbon stock accumulates over more than one year, the value attributed to CSA shall be estimated stock per unit area after 20 years or when crop reaches maturity, whichever is the earlier. “P” is the productivity of the crop measured as biofuel or bio-liquid energy per unit area per year. eB is the bonus of 29g CO2eq per Mega Joule (MJ) attributed in the calculation of emissions for a period up to 10 years from the date of conversion of the degraded land to oil palm cultivation which is further detailed in esca.

ep Emissions from the processing of FFB for the palm oil production.

etd Emissions from transport and distribution of processed palm oil for refining or biodiesel production.

eu Emissions from the fuel in use. If the fuel in use is from biofuels or bio-liquid it is considered as zero.

esca

Emission saving from soil carbon accumulation via improved agricultural management. This emission saving is related to eB, in relation to land restored and cultivated in “degraded land” for the production of raw materials for biofuel and bio-liquid after 1st January 2008. Under such conditions, a bonus of 29g CO2eq per Mega Joule (MJ) is added in the calculation of emissions for a period of up to 10 years from the date of conversion of the degraded land to oil palm cultivation. However, Article 19 paragraph (8) indicated that the definition and specification of the set out for the term “degraded land” is to be established through the regulatory procedure stipulated in Article 25 (4). On the other hand, in Annex V para 9 (a) and (b) referred the “severely degraded land” as land that has been a significant period of time saline, significantly low in organic matter content or severely eroded.

eccs Emission saving from carbon capture and geological storage. This is not applicable for biofuel and bio-liquid produced from palm oil as the emissions from carbon capture and storage are not practiced in oil palm operations.

eccr Emission saving from carbon capture and replacement. However, it the methane is captured, followed by flaring to CO2, GHG saving is considered zero.

eee Emission saving from excess electricity from co-generation. In the case of oil palm processing, if the methane is captured and converted into electricity transferred to a national grid some GHG credit be claimed.

Source: Official Journal of the European Union 2009

29

Figure 1: Major CO2 emission pathways in the production of biodiesel from palm oil

Switching the feed stocks in ammonia plants from heavy carbon sources such as naptha,

heavy oil etc., to light hydrocarbon such as natural gas, methane etc., and also

30

supplementing the shortage of CO2 feedstock for urea plant and a combination of all the above processes also reduced CO2 emission during urea production. The plants with ACES 21 system reduced CO2 to 0.258 from previous emission of 0.323 kg CO2 per kg of urea, while the revamping of plant machineries reduced the emission from 0.313 to 0.282 kg CO2 per kg of urea13. However, in their studies, the emissions from transportation of raw materials to the plants were not included. The production of ammonium sulphate had the lowest emission of CO2 among the nitrogenous fertilizers, with a value of 0.42 kg CO2 per kg of AS. This fertilizer was a by-product from the production of caprolactam or gas scrubbing. It was estimated that 4.5t of Ammonium Sulphate was produced for every ton of caprolactum. Much energy was spent to concentrate Ammonium sulphate solution from the caprolactum plant; an energy equivalent to 3 GJ/t AS5. The common phosphate used in the oil palm plantations is rock phosphate. Occasionally, for special cases triple or super phosphates are also used. Most of the phosphate rocks are mined and incurred a mean emission of 0.054 kg CO2 per Kg RP (Table 2). Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute reported that the energy required for the production of one ton of finished product of RP was only 15 KWh 9. According to US Energy Information Administration, the average CO2 emitted per KWh in Florida was 0.67 kg CO2 and amounted to 0.01 kg CO2 per kg RP14. Muriate of Potash (60% K2O) is widely used as the potassium source for oil palm nutrition. The average CO2 emission calculated from various reports was 0.37 kg CO2 per kg MOP (Table 2). Kieserite is also mined along with MOP as one of the by-products. The emission was 0.118 kg11 CO2 per kg of the product. Borate is the major micronutrient used in oil palm growth. Rio Tinto mineral reported emission of 0.291 kg CO2 per kg Borate 12.

3.1.2. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) emissions in oil

palm cultivation

N2O is formed naturally in the soils as an intermediary compound through the processes of nitrification (aerobic microbial activity from NH4 to NO3) and denitrification (anaerobic microbial activity, reduction of NO3 to N2).

IPCC15 indicated sources of the N2O emissions of human induced net additions to the soil such as the synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers, organic fertilizers, deposited manure, crop residue, sewage sludge and mineralization of the organic nitrogen in soil followed by the drainage of organic soils for cultivation or land use change in mineral soils. IPCC also provides a default value of 0.01 as emission factor15. In the case of oil palm, N2O is largely emitted during cultivation through the application of nitrogenous fertilizers and from the crop residues, mainly empty fruit bunches (EFB), a by-product from the palm oil mill as shown in Table 3. The EFB applied in the field as mulch is estimated at 16 tons dry matter per hectare, obtained from the processing to obtain crude palm oil. EFB bunches are treated with steam and threshed. In the final stage, the EFB will undergo a double pressing process to extract maximum oil and the moisture content of EFB is normally low. The ratio of FFB to EFB ranges from 18% to 22% depending on the rounds of double pressing cycles carried out in the oil mill. The EFB from this process is not sufficient to mulch all the fields of the plantation. In view of its bulkiness, EFB is mulched logistically in the nearest estate to save cost of transportation or to the estate where the soil has high sand content like Quartzipsamments or Udipsamments, where EFB provides moisture conservation and nutrients supply to the oil palms.

The IPCC 2006 default value of 0.01 or 1% N2O emission has uncertainty values ranging from 0.003 to 0.03. There are no studies on N2O emissions in oil palm crop residues and inorganic nitrogenous fertilizers applied for the crop. However, studies conducted on the N2O emission in Malaysian soil of Bungor series (loamy, kaolinitic, isohyperthermic, Typic Paleudult) with application of 322 kg N per hectare with inorganic fertilizer plus crop residue (ground nut and maize), showed an emission of only 1.90 kg N2O-N (0.59% of applied N), while treatment of 180 Kg N per hectare of inorganic fertilizer only emitted 1.41 kg of N2O-N (0.78% of applied N). Generally, the N2O emitted in their studies were lower than IPCC default value of 0.0117. Until further valid data is obtained for oil palm, the default value of 0.01 of IPCC 2006 will continue to be used in the GHG calculation.

31

Table 2: CO2eq emission in production of fertilizers (kg CO2eq / kg fertilizer)

Fertilizer Type

Urea (46%N)

AN (34%N)

AS (21%N)

RP (32% P2O5)

TSP (46% P2O5)

SSP (18% P2O5)

MOP (60% K2O)

Kieserite (27% MgO)

Borate (48% B2O3)

Compound

Emissions 0.61 5

0.42 5b 2.38 5

1.05 5b 0.34 5

0.14 5b

0.065 5a

0.28 5 0.02 5

0.34 5

0.17 5b

0.34 5c

0.39 5d

0.73 6a

2.14 6b

0.946c

- 0.47 6 - 0.35 6 0.58 6 -

1.61 7

2.30 7a 1.22 7

3.317a 0.45 7

0.70 7a 0.0617

0.0747a

0.17 7

0.20 7a

0.02 7

0.03 7a

0.34 7

0.41 7a

-

- - 0.062 8 - - - -

- - - 0.010 9 - - - -

1.05 10

1.26 10b - - - - - 0.11811 0.29112 -

Mean 1.25 1.71 0.42 0.054 0.25 0.023 0.37 0.118 0.291 0.365

Kongshuang5 (average of Europe production emission) 5, calculated CO2 emission of phosphate rocks of sedimentary rocks5a/. CO2 from the best technology available5b/.Compound fertilizer 15:15:15 of Urea/TSP/MOP combination5c/. Compound fertilizer 15:15:15 of AS/TSP/MOP combination5d/. Leegard et al., 6 Urea produced in Middle East6a. Urea produced in China6b. Urea produced in New Zealand6c. Kool A et.al., Emission CO2 value taken from Western Europe production7 World average of CO2 emission7a Ullmann 8 Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute9 Yara Note: Average emission of CO2 per Kg fertilizer from 4 Nodic countries of 6 plants10. If the Ammonia supplied from Russia10b Personal communication with Dr. Rolf Härdter 201111 Rio Tinto Minerals Sustainable Development Report12

Table 3: Estimated sources of N2O emissions in oil palm cultivation

Sources of N2O emission in oil palm plantation

Basis of calculation of N2O emission

Estimated N2O emission (kg per hectare)

Equivalent Global Warming Potential (Kg CO2eq per Hectare)

Inorganic fertilizer Calculated at 1 kg N per palm applied per year

2.14 633.44

Empty fruit bunches (Dry matter)

16 ton dry EFB per hectare and measured 0.7% of N with moisture content 40%16

1.76 520.96

Notes: 1. 136 palms per hectare

2. IPCC default value of 0.01 and converted at 1.57 N2O factor15)

32

Stichnothe pointed out the lack of consideration of N2O emission from the pruned fronds left on the ground after harvesting FFB 3. The life span of the oil palm frond is 4 to 5 years on the palm and not all the fronds are pruned simultaneously18. In a plantation, as part of good management practice, about 20 to 30 fronds are pruned in a year. Ng et al., estimated 67 kg of nitrogen, while Kee and Chew estimated 82 kg of nitrogen per hectare recycled in the oil palm field through regular pruning of fronds for easy access of harvesting bunches19,20. If organic matter N2O estimations from the pruned fronds were to be included in the GHG calculations, the estimated emission would be 349kg of CO2 per hectare (75kg N per hectare x 0.01 x 1.57 x 296) which would be extremely high. Since the pruned frond is an organic matter with high carbon content and should it be included in the calculation then it is only fair to include the carbon sequestration or accumulation in the frond piles. Mathews et al., estimated the amount of carbon accumulated in the edge of frond piles for first (7 to 30 years), second (7 to 24 years) and third (7 to 23 years) cycles of oil palm cultivation to a depth of 0-45cm were 6.55, 7.51 and 8.49, respectively, which were equivalent to 23,999, 27,517 and 31,107 kg of CO2 equivalent per hectare, respectively. The sequestered C values were very much higher than the estimated N2O emission from the frond piles21.

3.1.3. CO2 emissions from pesticides in

plantation

In a mature oil palm plantation, the major pesticide used is herbicides. Fungicides are rarely used. Insecticides are used when there is an outbreak of leaf eating pests. The insecticides are mainly used in new planting or re-planting of oil palm especially where the non burning method is adopted which results in high incidence of Rhinoceros beetle damage. The average carbon dioxide emission estimated per kilogram of product based on production, transportation, storage and transfers is given in Table 4.22

In the studies the breakdown of emissions in the finished product, packing, transportation and transfers were not provided. Hence it is required to apply the overall value of CO2 emissions.

Table 4: Mean CO2eq emissions from finished product, packing, transportation and

transfers of pesticides22

Type of pesticides CO2 Emissions (per Kg

active ingredient.)

Herbicides 23.12

Insecticides 18.72

Fungicides 14.31

3.1.4. CO2 emission from diesel usage in the

plantation

Diesel is widely used as fuel for the following activities in the plantation, palm oil mill and in the rest of the palm oil production pathway.

a. Trucks or tractors to carry fresh fruit bunches from estate or farm to oil mill and empty fruit bunches from the oil mill to estate or farm,

b. Heavy machineries at oil mill, c. Generators to supply electricity to

houses, d. Initial combustion for boiler activation

at oil mill, e. Transportation of crude palm oil from

the oil mill to the refinery using truck or barge, and

f. Transportation by tankers of refined palm oil to biodiesel plant for the production of biodiesel.

The emissions from use of diesel in palm oil mills, transportation of CPO to refinery and the transportation of refined palm oil for the production of biodiesel are discussed separately.

3.1.4.1. Internal (infield) and external

transportation of Fresh Fruit Bunch (FFB)

The FFB transportation is from within the estate and to the palm oil mill. Transportation of FFB is strictly under the management of estates. An oil palm plantation will have a network of road equivalent to 46m for every hectare. This translates to a network of about 92 km of roads in an estate of an area of 2,000 hectares. Similar results were documented by Turner and Gillbank, which ranged from 45m to 50m per hectare23. It would be difficult to monitor the exact quantity of diesel consumed

33

in the transportation of the FFB, due to wide network of the roads in the estate and the type of loads carried in the estate. For example, the trucks are not only used for transportation of FFB, but also for the transportation of EFB, mill waste, workers for field work, and soil for road repair work.

In a harvesting interval of 10 days, the average distance travelled for a 7 ton loaded capacity truck (2,200cc diesel engine) in the infield roads in an area of 2,000 hectares would be 18.4km per trip for the collection of FFB alone. Knowing the average yearly diesel consumption of such trucks with or without FFB load at 3.5 km per litre diesel, the CO2eq emission (3.13 Kg per litre) would be 16.46 kg for 5.26 litres of diesel per trip for the infield FFB collection alone. Although the combustible emission of diesel is 2.61 kg CO2eq per litre, Elsayed et al., has combined the emission of CO2 of production and combustion of diesel and has reported that the CO2 emission was equivalent to 3.13 kg per litre diesel24.

3.2. CO2 emissions from palm oil mill

effluent Carbon in the form of methane is emitted from palm oil mill effluent (POME) during open pond treatment. Palm oil mills which lack information on the chemical oxygen demand (COD) values in anaerobic ponds, may apply the theoretical value of emission of methane from one ton of POME to be about 12.12 kg of methane per ton POME as shown in Table 5. Quah and Gillies indicated the emission of 28.82m3 of biogas from 1 ton POME out of which 18.72m3 was methane and 10.08m3 as carbon dioxide25. The POME released to the effluent pond from the palm oil mill is measured using a flowmeter. Although the palm oil industry has fixed the value of 1 tonne FFB = 0.5 tonne POME, variations in the ratio of 1 tonne FFB to POME is possible in view of the seasonal trend of cropping, concentration and dilution of POME in the sterilization and clarification stages, and the quantity of water used in the washing of hydro-cyclone and cleaning of palm oil mill26. The effluent system has to be treated through a series of open pond systems consisting of a cooling pond, anaerobic, facultative anaerobic and aerobic ponds before it is released for land application or into the

watercourse. The number of ponds in a mill varies according to the capacity of the FFB throughput. The ratio of FFB to POME can thus be varied. Redshaw has taken the ratio of 1 tonne FFB to 0.65 tonne of POME27. Ma used the FFB to POME ratio of 0.6728. However, actual information on the quantity of POME production will be available in the palm oil mill itself, depending on a variety of factors. Yacob et al., studied the relationship of chemical oxygen demand (COD) and methane emission in the open pond system29. In their study, about 0.234 kilogram of methane is emitted from every kilogram of COD that is removed from POME, which translates to the COD of POME of about 51,140 ppm. This then gives a theoretical production of 12.12 g of methane per liter POME (Table 5). COD is measured prior to methane capture to understand and estimate the probability of methane captured in a closed tank system. After the methane capture and conversion to CO2 by flaring or energy usage, the measurement of COD from the residual POME will provide the probability of the left over amount of methane emitted. The samples of effluent are analysed by all palm oil mills on a monthly basis as a requirement from the Provincial or State environmental authorities in Indonesia and Malaysia, respectively. Such data is useful to evaluate the emission of methane gas through COD measurements in the open pond system. In some palm oil mills, the effluent is separated by clarification using decanter systems, whereby 50kg of wet solids (moisture content 82%) can be removed per tonne of FFB, which can be taken as one of the methods for methane emission reduction23. Composting is another method that can reduce methane gas emission by applying the liquid effluent to the EFB. However, in this case the NO2 emission will have to be taken into consideration during the calculation of the composting process. The COD measured in POME under such situations, with full or partial removal of organic solids, will be lower than the COD measured without separation of solids and consequently the methane emission will also be lower. This is one of the ways to measure and satisfy concerns of overcoming “fugitive emission” from the waste water treatment30.

34

Table 5: Theoretical methane (CH4) emission calculations from POME

Emission of Biogas in volume from one tonne POME25 28.82m3

Emission of methane gas in percentage out of 28.82m3 biogas 65%

Volume of methane from 65% of 28.82m3 of biogas 18.72m3 or 18720 liters

Application of Gas Law= PV=nRT, where the “P” is the pressure at 1 atmosphere, “V” is volume of methane gas of 18720 liters, “n” moles of gas in known volume where 1 mole of methane gas is 16g per mole, “T” is the temperature in Kelvin, where at 0oC =273.15K

Average Daily Temperature in Malaysia and Indonesia 28oC

Temperature in Kelvin 28+273.15 301.15K

n= PV/RT = (1 x 18720)/ (0.08206 x 301.15) 757.52 moles

Therefore, the weight methane gas in 757.52 moles x 16 g per mole 12120.3g or 12.12 kg of CH4

3.3. Allocation of emissions to the

products from palm oil mill

The allocation factor for the emission is estimated by proportionating the energy content of the products derived during processing in the palm oil mill, which comprises crude palm oil, palm kernel, fibre and shell. The energy contents of the several palm products and by-products are given in Table 6. It is possible that the extra shells, fibres or empty fruit bunches produced in the palm oil mill might be sold as biomass for the production of energy. In such cases the allocation of energy for the products must be calculated proportionately based on the moisture content of the by- products. It is likely that palm oil mills have extra shells and fibres, especially in the palm oil mills where methane is captured and the energy derived from the methane is used for its own processing and supply of electricity within the plantation. There are cases where dry and sliced EFB is used for bioenergy, instead of being sent to the field for mulching. In that case, the energy allocation of the by-products will support further savings in GHG emission. 3.4. CO2 emission during transportation of

CPO to refinery

The CPO processed in the palm oil mill has to be transferred to the refinery. The transportation of CPO may be by trucks or barges. The trucks may have to transfer the CPO up to the pier, where the CPO will be

loaded on to the barge (intermodal transportation)31. For the calculation of the CO2 emissions, direct emission by knowing the quantity of diesel used for the transportation by truck and or by barge can also be calculated. In the absence of data available for barges, “activity based calculation” can be employed as below31; CO2 emission = (Transport volume by transport mode x average transport distance travelled by transport mode x average CO2 emission factor per tonne-km by transport mode) = Tonnes CO2 emissions= (tonnes x km x g CO2 per tonne-km)/1000,000 The average CO2 emissions per tonne-km for different modes of transportation is given in Table 7. 3.5. CO2 emissions from palm oil refinery Pehnelt and Vietze recalculated the GHG emissions savings from palm oil biodiesel2. In their study it was indicated that during the refining process, for neutralization of lecithin and free fatty acid, 0.25 kg of phosphoric acid and 2.90 kg of sodium hydroxide per tonne refined palm oil were used. In the bleaching process, to remove undesirable coloured particles; 4.53 kg of Fuller’s earth were used per tonne of refined palm oil32. In refining palm oil, the energy used equivalent to diesel was about 9 liters per tonne refined palm oil32. Table 8 shows the overall expected emissions from the palm oil refinery.

35

Table 6: Energy contents of palm products and by-products on dry weight basis

Palm Products and By-Products Energy MJ/kg References

Crude Palm Oil 36.5 30

Palm Kernel 28 30

Palm Mesocarp Fibre 17.5 30

Shell 19.9 30

Empty Fruit Bunch 17.5 30

Biodiesel 37.0 1

Note: Moisture content in shell 25%, fibre 40% and Empty fruit bunch 40-60%.

Allocation = Kg of CPO per tonne FFB X 36.5MJ/kg (Kg of CPO per tonne FFB X 36.5MJ/kg + Kg of Kernel per tonne FFB X 28MJ/kg)

Table 7: Recommended average CO2 emission factor31

Mode of transport g CO2 per tonne-Km

Road 62

Barge (Inland water) 31

Short Sea 16

Deep Sea tanker 5

Table 8: CO2 emissions in the refinery for 1 tonne refined palm oil

Emission items Quantity (kg or litres) per tonne refined palm oil

CO2emission factor

Kg CO2 emission per tonne refined palm oil

Phosphoric acid 0.2532 3.0133 0.75

Sodium Hydroxide 2.9032 0.4733 1.36

Fuller’s Earth 4.5332 0.2033 0.91

Diesel 9.0032 3.1324 28.17

Total 31.19

The ratio of crude palm oil processed to refined palm oil is about 0.95, whereby 4- 4.5% of free fatty acids and about 0.5% of volatile substances are removed by the refining process34.

3.6. Transportation of refined palm oil to

Europe

A knowledge of the distances of some of the ports from Jakarta will be useful in understanding the export of refined palm oil. This is given in Table 9.

36

Table 9: Average distances of shipping from Jakarta to different parts of the world35

Ports Distances in Km

Rotterdam (Netherlands) 15,846

Helsinki (Finland) 17,487

Bonn (Germany) 16,199

Manchester (United Kingdom) 15,751

Liverpool (United Kingdom) 15,687

St:Petersburg (Russia) 17,763

Valdivostok (Russia) 6,136

Singapore 945

Port Said (Egypt) 9,786

Tunis (Tunisia) 11,945

Bagfas Iskur fertilizer port (Turkey) 11,217

Vancouver (Canada) 13,466

Note: Table 7 values of emission factor of CO2 per tonne-km can be applied here too.

3.7. CO2 emissions from biodiesel plant

Pehnelt and Vietze calculated the emissions of a biodiesel plant when the refined palm oil is esterified with methanol2. During esterification, glycerol is produced as a by-product and the calculated production of glycerol is 105 kg for every 1 tonne of biodiesel. They have calculated the total emission as 13.13 g CO2eq per MJ Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) for the electricity and chemicals used in the production of biodiesel and 2.85 CO2eq per MJ by-product glycerol2. The nett emission from biodiesel is, therefore, 10.28 CO2eq per MJ FAME2. They indicated that there are more efficient biodiesel producers with emissions lower than 10.28 g CO2eq per MJ FAME. They indicated the value of 7.1 g CO2eq for the processing of biodiesel from palm oil as an alternate efficient scenario of GHG savings. In the final stage of the pathway from crude palm oil to biodiesel, it appeared that to produce 1,000 kg of biodiesel it requires approximately 1,155 kg of CPO i.e. the ratio of CPO to biodiesel is 0.866.

4. Case study of GHG saving from palm oil produced for biodiesel

The current study was conducted in a 45 tonnes throughput oil mill with four supply chain estates for FFB delivery for an area of 8,945 hectares. The yield obtained was 26.0 tonnes with an average oil extraction rate of 22.91% and kernel extraction rate of 4.13%. There is no methane trapping system in the current facility and the effluent is treated in an open pond system. COD is measured from the 3 anaerobic ponds on a monthly basis. There is no decanter system either to remove the solids during the process. In the present study, N2O emissions from the EFB are also taken into consideration in order to avoid the fugitive emissions. The basis of calculation and the data used is obtained from this text. The GHG savings, without methane capture, for palm oil biodiesel used for the purpose of transportation, electricity generation, combined heat and power (CHP) and heat are 43.95%, 48.38%, 44.74% and 39.00% respectively as seen in Table 10. The quantum of CO2 emissions during the production of biodiesel, without methane capture, in the palm oil mill is shown in Figure 2.

37

Palm oil mill produces 42.02% of total GHG emissions, followed by land cultivation with 24.40%. The esterification sector for the production of biodiesel contributes 21.89%. Transportation to refinery and to Europe takes 9.6% while the refinery contributes 2.0%.

4.1. A scenario with methane capture and

flaring

A theoretical calculation with respect to methane capture and flaring to CO2 has been simulated and is compared with the open pond system as shown in Table 11. In the calculation, COD measurements before trapping methane gas are measured and after trapping the residue effluent are theoretically given. By knowing the COD of the effluent before and after methane trapping, information on fugitive emissions of methane is calculated. In this calculation, the initial COD was 48,125 ppm and after treatment was 5,000ppm. The estimated CO2eq emitted per tonne CPO was 2.52 kg at 5,000 ppm of COD. There is a greater saving of GHG with methane capture

and flaring of gas to CO2. The calculated GHG savings were 66.95%, 69.56%, 67.42% and 64.03% for the fossil fuel comparators of transport, electricity, combined heat and power (CHP) and heat, respectively. It must be taken into account that the plantations currently exporting palm oil for renewable energy with open pond system may be able to supply the CPO for biodiesel until 31st December 2016. After 1st January 2017, the open pond system in the production pathway may not qualify for the export of refined palm oil to Europe for biofuel and bio-liquids, unless some methane emission reduction or COD reduction of raw effluent programmes are put in place. However, the palm oil mills with methane capture followed by minimal flaring qualify to export CPO with above 50% savings in GHG. The 60% savings of GHG for the companies producing biofuel and bio-liquid with “installation” starts on or after 1st January 2017 and is achievable for palm oil mills, which capture methane or flare it, as seen in Table 11.

Figure 2: Percentage of total GHG in the production of Biodiesel from Palm Oil. (g CO2eq per MJ)

38

Table 10: Case study of GHG savings of palm oil produced in 2013 for 2014 biodiesel production

Estates 1 2 3 4 Total Kg CO2 per tonne CPO

Hectares (Ha) under cultivation 2225 2620 1850 2250 8945

Tonnes of Fresh fruit bunch 60520 66548 41995 63675 232738

Tonnes of Crude Palm Oil 13865 15246 9621 14588 53320

Tonnes of Kernel 2499 2749 1734 2630 9612

Tonnes of Shell 8379

Tonnes of Fibre 24251

Total Urea (Kg) 676400 796480 691900 684000 16799825 315.07

Total Phosphate Rock (Kg) 605200 712640 754800 612000 2684640 2.74

Total Muriate of Potash (Kg) 1134750 1158040 1006400 994500 4293690 29.79

Total Kieserite (Kg) 151300 0 377400 0 528700 1.17

Total Borate (Kg) 30260 35632 25160 30600 121652 0.66

Total Compound 12:12:17:4 (Kg) 32640 23324 0 5100 61064 0.42

Total Glyphosate (48%) applied (Kg a.i.) 2392 3521 995 3629 10537 4.57

Total Metsulfuron methyl (20%) (Kg a.i.) 18.69 22.01 7.77 18.9 67 0.03

Total Paraquat dichloride (26%) (Kg a.i.) 1296 1526 539 1310 4671 2.02

Total Triclopyr butoxyester(60%) (Kg a.i) 240 283 0 486 1009 0.44

Total Cypermethrin(30%)(Kg a.i) 1.87 1.53 0 0.40 3.79 0.001

Diesel for Generator (L) 173252 36016 110705 256789 576762 33.86

Total infield trips FFB collection (Km) 176978 229153 102108 188296 696535 11.68

Total external trips to oil mill (Km) 207497 0 191977 382050 781524 13.11

Methane POME in open pond system (released 144298m3POME) and COD 48125 ppm

700.94

Diesel (L) used in oil mill 56356 3.32

EFB (Kg)Mulching 0 46548000 0 0 46548000 11.34

Total for cultivation and processing 1131.19

Allocation factor for palm products and total for cultivation and processing palm oil

0.884 999.84

Transport of CPO to Refinery (Intermodal activity)

Diesel (L) for 7 tonne CPO tankers 195870 11.50

Barge (total CO2 emission Kg) 2837492 53.22

Total Emission CO2 up to refinery 1064.56

Kg CO2 per tonne RPO

Total Emission CO2 at Refinery 1579982 31.19

Transportation of RPO to Europe 16000 km CO2 emission

4052341 80.00

Total CO2 emission up to Europe 1175.75

Emission equivalent to g CO2 per MJ (0.866 (CPO to biodiesel ratio) X 37MJ)

36.69

Total emission from esterification (g CO2 per MJ)

10.28

Total emission (g CO2 per MJ) 46.97

GHG Savings against transport comparator 83.8g per MJ 43.95%

GHG Savings against electricity comparator 91g per MJ 48.38%

GHG Savings against combined heat and power comparator 85g per MJ 44.74%

GHG Savings against heat comparator 77g per MJ 39.00%

39

Table 11: Emissions without methane capture and simulated methane capture and flaring (g CO2

per MJ)

Areas of Emission Open Pond system

Without Methane capture With methane capture and

flaring

Cultivation 11.46 11.46

Processing 19.74 0.47

Transport to Refinery 2.02 2.02

Refining 0.97 0.97

Transport to EU 2.50 2.50

Esterification 10.28 10.28

Total GHG savings (g CO2 per MJ)

46.97 27.70

GHG saving against transport comparator (83.8g per MJ)

43.95% 66.95%

GHG saving against electricity comparator (91g per MJ)

48.38% 69.56%

GHG saving against combined heat and power comparator (85g per MJ)

44.74% 67.42%

GHG saving against heat comparator (77g per MJ)

39.00% 64.03%

5. Conclusions This study shows that the main GHG emission occurs during the processing of crude palm oil. The methane gas emission from open pond effluent system results in 98% of the GHG emissions in the palm oil mill. Fugitive emissions like emissions from the empty fruit bunch and methane in the waste water after methane capture have been included in this study. The emissions from nitrogenous fertilizers and the N2O emissions from EFB are the next largest GHG emitters in the cultivation of oil palm and the processing of FFB. Together, they emit about 9.50gCO2 per MJ. The total GHG savings for biodiesel production in open pond system is less than 50%. Measures are required to reduce the COD content in the raw effluent of the palm oil mills with open pond system in order to qualify for palm oil biodiesel export to Europe after 1st January 2017. It is noted that when these measures are carried out, GHG savings could exceed 60%.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank the senior

management of Bumitama Gunajaya Agro

(BGA) for the support and the permission to

publish this paper.

References

1. Official Journal of the European Union 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of the 23rd April 2009. pp L140/16-L140/62

2. Pehnelt G AND Vietz C 2013 Recalculating GHG emissions savings of Palm oil biodiesel. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 15 pp 429-479

3. Stichnothe H 2014.Critical analysis of the GHG calculation methodology of the European Renewable Energy Directive for the case of Palm Oil in Indonesia. Presented in the 5thQuadrennial International Oil Palm Conference (IOPC 2014), theme, Green Palm Oil for Food Security and Renewable Energy, Bali Indonesia 17-19th June 2014.

40

4. Commission Decision 2010. Guidelines for the calculation of land carbon stocks for the purpose of Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC notified under document C(2010) 3751 (2010/335/EU).

5. Kongshaug 1998. Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in fertilizer production. IFA Technical Conference Marrakeh, Moroco. International Fertilizer Industry Association.

6. Leelgard S F, Boyes M and Brentrup F 2011 Lifecycle assessment of local and imported fertilizers used on New Zealand farms. In adding to the Knowledge base for the nutrient manager (Eds Currie L D and Christensen C L) Occasional Report 24, Fertilizer and Lime Research Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

7. Kool A, Marinussen M, and Blonk H 2012. LCI data for the calculation tool feedprint for greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization GHG emissions of N,P and K fertilizer production Blonk Consultants, Netherland.

8. Ullmann 1991 Encyclopedia of Industry Chemistry, Volume A 19, 448-445

9. Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute 2010 Science and Engineering for Florida’s Environment and Economy, 1855 W, Main St., Bartow, Florida 33830.

10. Yara Note 2014 Calculation of Carbon Foot Print of fertilizer production.

11. Härdter R 2011 Personal Communication. 12. Rio Tinto Minerals 2012 Sustainable

Development Report. 13. Yasuhiko Kojima, Haruyuki Morikawa and

Eiji Sakata 2008 Urea production reduces greenhouse gas by energy saving and carbon dioxide recovery, Toyo Engineering Corporation Chiba 275-0024, Japan..

14. US Energy Information Administration 2010 State Electricity Profile Data.

15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006.Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4, Agriculture, Forestry and other Land use Chapter 11, N2O emissions from managed soils and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application. (Authors; Cecile De Klien, Rafael S A Nova, Stephen Ogle, Keith A Smith, PhillippeRochette, Thomas C Wirth, Brian G McConkey, Arvin Mozier and Kristin Rypdal pp 11.5 to 11.53.

16. Internal laboratory report 2013 Bumitama Gunajaya Agro.

17. Khalid M.I. Rosenani A. B. Cleamput O’ Van, Fauziah C.I. Shamshuddin J 2002 Nitrous oxide emissions from an Ultisols of humid tropics under maize- groundnut rotation. Journal of Environmental Quality 31:1071-1078.

18. Corley R H V and Gray B S 1974 Growth and morphology. In Oil Palm Research and Developments in Crop Science 1 (Corley RHV, Hardon JJ and Wood BJ eds) Elsevier Scientific Company, Amesterdam 12.

19. Ng S.K. Thamboo S and deSouza P 1968. Nutrient contents of oil palms in Malaya II. Nutrients in vegetative tissues. The Malaysian Agricultural Journal 46 332-391.

20. Kee K K and Chew P S 1997 Nutrients recycled from pruned fronds in mature oil palm (ElaeisguineensisJacq.) Poster paper. In XII International Plant Nutrition Colloquium, Tokyo, Japan 13-19 September 1997.

21. Mathews J, Tan T H and Chong K M 2010. Indication of soil organic carbon augmentation in oil palm cultivated inland mineral soils of Peninsular Malaysia. The Planters, Kuala Lumpur, 86, (1010) pp 203-313.

22. Lal R 2004. Carbon Emission from Farm Operation. Environment International, 30, pp 981-990.

23. Turner P D AND Gillbank R A 2003 Oil Palm Cultivation and Management Second Edition Incorporated Society of Planters Kuala Lumpur.

24. Biomass ENERGY CENTRE, quoted Elsayed M A, Matthews R, Mortimer N D 2003 Report to DTI sustainable energy programmes entitled “Carbon and energy balances for a range of biofuels options” Project Number B/B6/00784/REP URN 03/836, Resources Research unit, Sheffield Hallam University.

25. Quah, S K and Gillies D 1984 Practical experience in production and use of biogas. In Proceeding of National Workshop on Oil Palm By-Products. Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia Kuala Lumpur 119-126

26. Yacob S, Hassan M A, Shirai Y, Wakisaka M, Subash S 2005 Baseline study of methane emission from open digesting tanks of palm oil mill effluent treatment Chemosphere 59, pp 1575-1581

27. Redshaw M 2003 Utilization of Field Residues and Mill By-Product, Oil Palm Management of Large and Sustainable

41

Yields (Eds. Fairhurst T and Härdter R) pp 307- 320

28. Ma A N 1999 Innovations in management of palm oil mill effluent. Planter 75 Kuala Lumpur 381-389.

29. Yacob S, Hassan M A, Shirai Y, Wakisaka M, Subash S 2006 Baseline study of methane emission from anaerobic ponds of palm oil mill effluent treatment Science of the Total Environment 366 pp 186-196

30. Fehrenbach H 2007, Greenhouse gas balances for German bio-fuels Quota legislation. Methodological guidance and default values. Institute for energy and environmental research Heidelberg, Germany. Presented on behalf of Umweltbundessamt (UBA) for Global Bio Energy Partnership (GBEP) Task force meeting on GHG methodology 9th -10th October 2007, Washington, USA.

31. CEFIC AND (formerly known as Conseil Europeen des Federations de ÍIndustrie Chimique now known as European Chemical Industry Council) and ECTA (known as European Communities Trade Mark Association) 2011. Guidelines for measuring and managing CO2 emissions from freight transport operation. Issue 1 March 2011.

32. Schmidt J H 2007 Life cycle assessment of rape seed oil and palm oil Ph.D Thesis part 3 Lifecycle inventory of rape seed and palm oil .Department of Development and Planning Aalborg University.

33. Emission factor ISCC 203, 11-03-15, v2.3-EU 2011

34. Sudhakaran N B 2014 Personal Communication

35. Distance and Time - Searates

http://www.searates.com/reference/ports

36.