DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS FORSUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS FOR

BIOENERGYCase Study in Lampung, IndonesiaCase Study in Lampung, Indonesia

Udin HasanudinDepartment of Agro-industrial Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Lampung,

Jl Sumantri Brojonegoro No 1 Bandar Lampung 35145 INDONESIAJl. Sumantri Brojonegoro No. 1, Bandar Lampung-35145, INDONESIA email: udinha@unila.ac.id

On behalf of

ERIA WG on “ Sustainability Biomass Utization in East Asia”

Regional Forum on Sustainable Bioenergy, Hotel Salak – Bogor, Indonesia, November 6th-7th, 2012

ERIA WG on Sustainability Biomass Utization in East Asia

Back ground; Back ground; g ;g ;Challenges for Sustainable Biomass UtilizationChallenges for Sustainable Biomass Utilization

Maximization of Socio-economic benefits Mitigation of Environmental impactsMitigation of Environmental impactsBiomass supply from various feedstockyImprovement of energy securityA t f i l i dAssessment for social, economic, and environmental impacts

2

Triple Bottom Lines for Sustainable DevelopmentTriple Bottom Lines for Sustainable DevelopmentWG ConceptWG Concept on Sustainabilityon Sustainability

Triple Bottom Lines for Sustainable DevelopmentTriple Bottom Lines for Sustainable DevelopmentSocialSocial

PerformancePerformanceDomestic/Regional Gap Domestic/Regional Gap PerformancePerformanceDomestic/Regional Gap Domestic/Regional Gap AbatementAbatementFoodFood vs. Energy (Culture, vs. Energy (Culture, Ed ti P t H lth P Ed ti P t H lth P Education, Poverty, Health, Peace, Education, Poverty, Health, Peace, Human Rights ..) Human Rights ..) by HDI by HDI or similar or similar indexindex

GHG Emission GHG Emission Economic Economic Sustainability Sustainability ReductionReduction

(Global & Regional(Global & RegionalEnvironment…)Environment…)

Sustainability, Sustainability, Energy Security Energy Security (Economic (Economic D l t)D l t) by LCAby LCADevelopment)Development)by Gross Value by Gross Value AddedAdded

EconomicEconomicPerformancePerformance

3Environmental Environmental

PerformancePerformance

WG activities/outcomes WG activities/outcomes “S t i bl Bi Utili ti WG1 Bangkok

2007 -

08

“Sustainable Biomass Utilisation Vision in East Asia”

scientific backup for adoption of “Asia Biomass Energy

WG1 BangkokWG2 Chiang Mai WG3 Bangkok08 scientific backup for adoption of “Asia Biomass Energy

Principles” by Energy Minister Meeting, EAS.

gWG4 Singapore

2008-

09

“Guidelines to Assess Sustainability of Biomass Utilisation in East Asia”

WG1 Jakarta WG2 BangkokWG3 Tsukuba

2009Pilot test: “ Sustainability Assessment WG1 Lampung

WG2 Quezon2009-

10

of Biomass Energy UtilisationDevelopment in East Asia”

G Que oWG3 Khon KaenWG4

Environmental Economic and Social Indicator Hyderabad

2010 WG1 JakartaWG2 T k b

4-

2012Continuous improvement of methodology WG2 Tsukuba

WG3 TsukubaWG4 Tsukuba

Maximization of Socio economic benefitsObjective Objective of WGof WG

Maximization of Socio-economic benefits Mitigation of Environmental impacts

Objective of WG Pilot Projects in 2009Objective of WG Pilot Projects in 2009--1010j jj jTo adopt/ adjust sustainability indicators for assessing environmental economic andassessing environmental, economic andsocial impacts in productions and Utilisation of biomass in specific regional circumstances inbiomass in specific regional circumstances in EAS countries. To improve the “Guidelines to AssessTo improve the Guidelines to Assess Sustainability of Biomass Utilisation in East Asia” through pilot projects

5

Asia through pilot projects.

6

Objecti e of Lamp ng Pilot ProjectObjective of Lampung Pilot Project• To test the sustainability assessmentTo test the sustainability assessment

methodology on the utilization of Cassava and Jatropha for bio energy in Lampungand Jatropha for bio-energy in Lampung Province, Indonesia.

MethodTh G id li t A S t i bilit fThe Guidelines to Assess Sustainability of Biomass Utilization in East (ERIA Project Report No.8-2) was used as a method of assessment.

7

Sustainability Assessment MethodologySustainability Assessment Methodology(ERIA Project Report No.8-2)

• Environmental ImpactLif C l A h t d l G h- Life Cycle Approach to develop Greenhouse Gase Inventory

• Economic Impact- Total Value Added- Total Value Added

• Social Impact- HDI (Human Development Index)

8

CASE A. CASSAVA FOR ETHANOL

9

What the Environmental Impact ?

LCA d t l t thLCA was used to evaluate the environmental impact of bioethanolenvironmental impact of bioethanol

production from cassava

10

Bo ndar of st d s stemBoundary of study systemContractNon‐Contract Contract Farmers

Non Contract Farmers

Composting

Wet cake, Cassava peels,

CO2

Cassava peels,Soil

CO2CoalsCO2 Bioethanol

MarketsCO2Power 

Generator

CO2

Ethanol Factory

Markets(Chemicals industries, biofuel etc)

CO2

11Thin slop

Biogas plant

Schematic diagram of ethanol productionMolasses

PW Steam PW

PreTreatmentFeed Stock Liquefaction

Slurry Mash Saccharification&

Fermentation

Cassava

Steam

Distillation Decantation

Thin Slops

WWTPProduct Wet Cake

Treated EffluentBiogas to

Boiler

12

Material balance on cassava-based ethanol production (based on a ha of plantation)

1.37 Ton Coal

13

CO2 emission from ethanol productionProcess Source Unit* Quantity

CO2e Emission(kg/L Ethanol) (kg/GJ)***

Plantation Diesel fuel L/ha 13.7 0.0097 0.4596Urea Kg/ha 192 0.0406 1.9241

NPK (15-15-15) Kg/ha 185.5 0.0173 0.8220Herbicides Kg/ha 1 747 0 0069 0 3249Herbicides Kg/ha 1.747 0.0069 0.3249

Transportation Diesel fuel L/ton 0.41L/KL ethanol 2.658 0.0082 0.3920

Electricity Processing

y(Coal) MW 5.7

MWh/KL ethanol 0.760 0.7858 37.2436CO M3/d 0** 0CO2 M3/day 0** 0

Waste treatment CH4, flared M3/day 0** 0CO2 M3/day 0** 0CH4, vented M3/day 18957.9 1.5798 74.8732CH4, vented M /day 18957.9 1.5798 74.8732CH4, utilized M3/day 18957.9 -0.3379 -16.0121

TOTAL CO2 EMISSION (SCENARIO 1, FLARED) 0.8686 41.1663TOTAL CO2 EMISSION (SCENARIO 2, VENTED) 2.4484 116.0395

14*) every ha produces 4.394 KL ethanol **) neutral***) Low Heating Value of Ethanol = 21.1 MJ/Lwww.bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html)

TOTAL CO2 EMISSION (SCENARIO 3, UTILIZED) 0.5308 25.1542

GHG Emission from Ethanol Production compare to Gasoline (kg CO2e/GJ)

84,80GHG

gasolineUtilized

116,04Vented

Utilized

Flared

41,17Flared Vented

25,15Utilized

GHG gasoline

0,00 30,00 60,00 90,00 120,00 150,00

15(kg CO2e/GJ)

GHG Emission from Ethanol Production G G ss o o t a o oduct ocompare to Gasoline (%)

100GHG

gasoline Utilized

137Vented Flared

49Flared Vented

30Utilized

GHG gasoline

30

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

16

0 25 50 75 100 125 150( % )

What the Economic Impact ?

TVA d t l t thTVA was used to evaluate the economic impact of bioethanoleconomic impact of bioethanol

production from cassava

17

Costs and returns in cassava production for partnership farmers

QUANTITY/ COST/UNIT COST/HAITEMS

QUANTITY/ HA

COST/UNIT (in IDR)

COST/HA (in IDR)

Seed Fertilizer comMATERIAL

Seed, Fertilizer, compost, and Chemicals

1 package 1,187,950 1,187,950

Weeding FertilizingLABOR

Weeding, Fertilizing, and Other Maintenance

28.05 days 25,000 701,328

MACHINE Land preparation 1 package 294,498 294,498Harvesting and Transportation

28,49 ton 69,545 1,981,338Transportation

OVERHEADTax, and rent, refraction

2,135,280

TOTAL COST 6,300,394TOTAL fresh cassava root 28,490kg 439.25 12,536,138NET PROFIT 6 235 744

18

NET PROFIT 6,235,744

Costs and returns in cassava production for non-partnership farmers

QUANTITY/ COST/UNIT COST/HAITEMS

QUANTITY/ HA

COST/UNIT (in IDR)

COST/HA (in IDR)

Seed, Fertilizer, MATERIAL compost, and

Chemicals1 package 1,027,716 1,027,716

W di F tili iLABOR

Weeding, Fertilizing, and Other Maintenance

37.31 days 25,000 832,811

MACHINE Land preparation 1 package 478,172 478,172Harvesting and T i

24,67 ton 74,897 1,847,716Transportation

, , , ,

OVERHEADTax, and rent, refraction

1,823,862refraction

TOTAL COST 6,110,277TOTAL fresh cassava root 24,670 kg 449.75 11,106,193

19NET PROFIT 4,995,916

Value added resulted from processing cassava tubersValue added resulted from processing cassava tubers into ethanol on a liter ethanol basis

Ethanol PriceR M t i l C t Cassava = 6.48 kg 

Ethanol Price 5336 IDR /L

/

Raw Material Cost Processing Cost  g

2846‐2914 IDR /

950 1108

1382‐1472 IDR /L Value Added950‐1108

20

Costs and returns in production of ethanol from one hectare cassava productioncassava production

ITEMS QUANTITYCOST/UNIT TOTAL

ITEMS QUANTITY (IDR) (IDR)

TOTAL COST 4,466 L 4,231 18,895,646

TOTAL OUTPUT, L 4,466 L 5,336 23,830,576

SELLING PRICE PER L 5,336,

NET PROFIT 4,934,930

BY PRODUCT Biogas 712 M3 4 200 2 990 400BY PRODUCT Biogas 712 M 4,200 2,990,400

Compost 1.37 T 700,000 959,000

ADDITIONAL PROFIT 3,949,400

TOTAL PROFIT 8,884,330

21

TOTAL PROFIT 8,884,330

What the Social Impact ?

HDI d t l t thHDI was used to evaluate the Social impact of bioethanolSocial impact of bioethanol production from cassava

22

Social parameters on cassava production in North Lampungin North Lampung

Item Quantity

N b f l i 7820Number of population 7820

Number of family (NF) 1872

Average age of dead people (year) 61.89

Income per capita (US$/year) 635.8

Number of illiterate people 102

Number of preschool pupils 34

Number of basic school student 397

Number of junior high student 470

Number of senior high student 333

Number of diploma student 19

23

p

Number of university student 0

258961Life Expectation Index =

25852589.61

−−

= 0.6148

Number of adult people = 2 * NF + HS + DS + US = 2(1872) + 333 + 19 + 0 = 4096Number of adult people = 2 * NF + HS + DS + US = 2(1872) + 333 + 19 + 0 = 4096

ALR (Adult Literacy Rate) = 100 % * (4096 – 102)/4096 = 97.5 %

ALI (Adult Literacy Index) = 01000

−−ALR

= 010005.97

−−

= 0.975

GEI = 7820

)1933347039734( ++++ = 0.16

EI (Education Index) = 2/3 (ALI) + 1/3 (GEI) = 2/3 (0.975) + 1/3 (0.16) = 0.70

GDP Index =)100log()log( −pcGDP

=)100log()8.635log( −

= 0 309GDP Index = )100log()40000log( −

= )100log()40000log( −

= 0.309

HDI = (LEI + EI + GDPI)/3 = (0.615 + 0.700 + 0.309)/3 = 0.542

24

Is it Sustainable ?

I t ti f i t lIntegration of environmental. Economic and Social Indicator ??Economic, and Social Indicator ??

25

Sustainability indicators of cassavaSustainability indicators of cassava production and utilization for ethanol 26

CASE B. JATROPHA FOR CJO

27

InitialJATROPHA BIOMASS UTILIZATION

Sludge

Fertilizer (kg/ha):Urea: 24;

Solid: 1.8 kg/d, Liquid: 15.2 Lt/d 1 m3 BG/day

E500 kg

;TSP: 17; NPK: 16;FYM: 227

q /0.6 Lt Kersn 3.5 kg wood

Biogas stovePeeling400

EnergyManualPeel25 man.d

Jatropha

Biogas Reactor

Jatropha S d

400 kg/ha

Jatropha Cake+Paste

Seeds

69.7 kg100 kg

Crude Diesel Fuel3 5 L

Jatropha MillJatropha Oil3.5 Lt

30.3 kg28

What the Environmental Impact ?

LCA d t l t thLCA was used to evaluate the environmental impact of CJOenvironmental impact of CJO

production

29

30

CO2 emission from jatropha production and utilization for CJO

10.3012 12.0

utilization for CJO

7.4557 8.0

10.0

4.0

6.0

e/GJ

2.0

4.0

Kg CO2e

‐2.0

0.0

Plantation Processing Waste treatment

(5.1707)‐6.0

‐4.0Activity

( )

31

What the Economic Impact ?

TVA d t l t thTVA was used to evaluate the economic impact of CJOeconomic impact of CJO

production

32

Costs and returns in jatropha seed production

ITEMSQUANTITY/

HA

COST/UNIT

COST/HA (i IDR)HA

(in IDR)(in IDR)

MATERIALSeed, Fertilizer and O h Ch i l 1 k 214 648MATERIAL Other Chemicals, Compost

1 package 214,648

Land preparation,

LABOR

Land preparation, planting, Fertilizing, and Other Maintenance

64.11 day 24011 1,539,345

Harvesting, peeling and Hauling

26.92 day 24011 646,376

TOTAL COST 2 400 369TOTAL COST 2,400,369

TOTAL seed 790 kg 1,000 790,000

33NET PROFIT -1,610,369

COST/ UNIT TOTAL (IDR)

Costs and returns in CJO production considering a maximum use of waste

ITEMS QUANTITYCOST/ UNIT

(IDR)TOTAL (IDR)

Direct Costs

Seed input cost 790 kg 1,000/kg 790,000Labor cost 790 kg 1 000/kg 790 000Costs Labor cost 790 kg 1,000/kg 790,000Fuel 27.6 L 5,000/L 138,000

Sub-Total 1,718,000O h d 0OverheadMiscellaneous (helper, fees and local taxes, selling and administrative)

0

TOTAL COST 1,718,000TOTAL OUTPUT, L CJO 239.4 10,000 2,394,000NET PROFIT 676,000BY PRODUCT

Jatropha peel (0.4 factor) 1264 kg 700 884,800

Biogas from jatropha cake* 275.3 m3 4200 1,156,260

Solid/sludge fertilizer 550.6 kg 630 346,878/ g g ,

ADDITIONAL PROFIT 2,387,938TOTAL PROFIT (IDR/Ha) from processing 3,063,938

TOTAL PROFIT (IDR/Ha) from farming and processing 1 453 56934

TOTAL PROFIT (IDR/Ha) from farming and processing 1,453,569

*) 1 m3 biogas is equivalent to 0.6 L kerosene

What the Social Impact ?

HDI d t l t thHDI was used to evaluate the Social impact of CJO productionSocial impact of CJO production

35

Social parameters on jatropha farmers in Way Isem, North Lampung

Item QuantityN b f l ti 1443

j y g

Number of population 1443

Number of family (NF) 361

Average age of dead people (year) 31

Income per capita (US$/year) 321.7

Number of illiterate people 44

Number of preschool pupils 0

Number of elementary school student 468

Number of junior high student 37

Number of senior high student 74

Number of diploma student 5

36

p

Number of university student 0

Life Expectation Index = = 0.100

Number of adult people = 2 * NF + HS + DS + US = 2(361) + 74 + 5 + 0 = 801Number of adult people = 2 * NF + HS + DS + US = 2(361) + 74 + 5 + 0 = 801

ALR (Adult Literacy Rate) = 100 % * (801 – 44)/801 = 94.5 %

ALI (Adult Literacy Index) = = = 0.945

GEI = = 0.404

EI (Education Index) = 2/3 (ALI) + 1/3 (GEI) = 2/3 (0.945) + 1/3 (0.404) = 0.7647

GDP Index = 0 195GDP Index = 0.195

HDI = (LEI + EI + GDPI)/3 = (0.100 + 0.7647 + 0.195)/3 = 0.353437

( ) ( )

P fitProfit

Δ HDI Δ CO2

Sustainability indicators of jatropha production and utilization for CJO

38

Highlight of Pilot Project Highlight of Pilot Project g g jg g jSustainability Assessment Methodology(ERIA Project Report No.8-2)• Indicators like GHG savings, TVA, and HDI change, g , , g ,

are suitable for assessing the environmental, economic, and social sustainability, respectively, of biomass energy utilization

• Utilization of all by-products in the production of biomass energy is very much recommended to increase the sustainability of soil, reduce environmental impact, and optimize social and ecoconomic benefits

39

Improvement of MethodologyImprovement of MethodologyImprovement of MethodologyImprovement of Methodology• Environmental indicator chosen for this phase of the o e ta d cato c ose o t s p ase o t e

project cover only GHG savings which is very relevant to current concerns on biofuels. Evaluation of GHG for global warming using LCA is appropriate but other emission and impacts can also be considered, such as: land use change eutrophication ecotoxicity humanland use change, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, human toxicity, and resource depletion affect.

• Other Economic indicators are also considered such asOther Economic indicators are also considered, such as TNP, TVA, and Forex saving.

• Although HDI is widely applied to evaluate social impactAlthough HDI is widely applied to evaluate social impact at state, regional or national level, there is need to develop an index or some indices that can better

40represent social impact at the community level.

Latest Methodology ImprovementLatest Methodology Improvement• In environmental aspects, one of important environmental

sustainability elements namely soil sustainability wassustainability elements, namely, soil sustainability, was introduced and possibility of its quantification was explored.explored.

• In economic aspects, the production and income approaches were discussed because different ppapproaches could apply to different scale of biomass projects.

• In social aspects, “Employment” and “Access to Modern Bioenergy,” were quantified.

f• The discussions were also made on a way of presentation of results so that they can assist the policy makers in a better way

41

better way.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jie/-char/ja/

42

List of WG MemberList of WG MemberMasayuki SAGISAKA: ERIA Working Group Leader, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), JapanYuki KUDOH: ERIA Working Group Acting Leader, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japangy ( ), pSau Soon CHEN: Environment & Bioprocess Technology Centre, SIRIM Berhad, MalaysiaJessie C. ELAURIA: Institute of Agricultural Engineering, College of Engineering and Agro-Industrial Technology University of the Philippines Los Baños the PhilippinesIndustrial Technology, University of the Philippines Los Baños, the PhilippinesShabbir H. GHEEWALA: The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE), King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, ThailandUdin HASANUDIN: Department of Agroindustrial Technology University of Lampung Udin HASANUDIN: Department of Agroindustrial Technology, University of Lampung, IndonesiaJane ROMERO: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), JapanY h SADAMICHI N ti l I tit t f Ad d I d t i l S i d T h l Yucho SADAMICHI: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), JapanVinod K. SHARMA: Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR), India

43Xunpeng SHI: Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asian (ERIA)

Thank you for your kind attention

44