Biodiesel Production From Canola in Western Australia

Biodiesel Production from Canola in Western Australia: Energy and CarbonFootprints and Land, Water, and Labour Requirements

Ferry Rustandi and Hongwei Wu*

Curtin Centre for AdVanced Energy Science and Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, CurtinUniVersity of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth WA 6845, Australia

This study evaluates the energy and carbon footprints and land, water, and labor requirements of biodieselproduction from canola in Western Australia (WA). The results show that canola-based biodiesel leads tolimited energy profit and CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) emissions savings. Even when all byproduct are utilized,a relatively low output/input energy ratio of 1.72 and a CO2-e emissions savings of only 0.52 kg of CO2-e/Lof biodiesel are obtained under the WA conditions considered in this study. A land requirement of 1.66 ×10-3 ha/L of biodiesel means that canola-based biodiesel seems to also be limited to <2% replacement oftotal diesel consumption in WA’s transport sector to avoid significant competition with food production forarable land. When some of the biodiesel is invested back into the production process to make the processindependent of nonrenewable fuels, the competition for arable land use is even more severe, rendering itunfeasible to replace diesel fuel by the net biodiesel. Also, there would not be enough net biodiesel to supportthe transport activities that are usually supported by diesel fuel in the WA transport sector, and no CO2-eemissions savings would be achieved from replacing diesel fuel by net biodiesel. Overall, canola-based biodieselis not sustainable to replace a significant fraction of diesel consumption in the WA transport sector. It canonly play a limited role by offering some energy and CO2-e emissions savings and by providing immediateopportunities for introducing new transport fuels in the marketplace and developing familiarity among theconsumers in our transition to a future sustainable biofuel supply.

1. Introduction

Renewable energy is recognized to be an important part ofany strategy to address energy security concerns and theenvironmental issues related to fossil fuel use.1 Australia facesparticular challenges in these aspects because of its large area,small but widely dispersed population, and heavy reliance onenergy-intensive industries including mining and agriculture.2

These factors lead to Australia being a country with per-capitaenergy consumption among the highest in the world.1 Inparticular, the transport sector is one of the most energy-intensive sectors in Australia.3 Liquid fuels produced fromproven Australian oil reserves have been estimated to last forapproximately another 20 years.4 Therefore, developing arenewable alternative transport fuel is a priority for future energysecurity and sustainable development in Australia.

However, to contribute meaningfully to future energy security,any biofuel production process must be energetically feasible;that is, it must not consume more nonrenewable primary energythan the alternative fuel energy output. Additionally, the biofuelproduction process should not be constrained by the availabilityof land and water resources. It has also been pointed out in theliterature5-7 that a truly sustainable biofuel production processshould have labor productivity that is compatible with the laborproductivity in the diesel fuel supply to the transport sector.Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of all of these aspects mustbe carried to assess the true sustainability of any biofuels. Suchanalysis is also critical to the setting of credible governmentpolicy for fostering the development of a future sustainablebiofuel industry.

In Western Australia (WA), there has been an increasinginterest in replacing diesel fuel with biodiesel produced fromcanola (rapeseed, Brassica napus species).8,9 Because of the

inevitable consumption of nonrenewable fuels and the associatedgreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during canola production andits conversion to biodiesel, canola-based biodiesel might notbe renewable and sustainable. In the literature, a number ofprevious studies10-21 investigated the energy and carbon balancefor producing biodiesel from canola. However, those studiesmainly focused on European countries, including Germany,Sweden, Austria, France, Switzerland, Italy, Lithuania, Belgium,and the United Kingdom, with the results of those studies10-21

suggesting that the overall energy performance of biodieselproduction from canola is strongly region-dependent. Obviously,those results might not be applicable directly to WA. Further-more, those studies focused on energy and carbon balanceanalysis. Little has been done on the requirements of land, water,and labor, which are also critical factors in determining theoverall sustainability of canola-based biodiesel.

Therefore, it was the objective of this work to carry out asystematic study on the energy and carbon footprints, as wellas land, water, and labor requirements, of biodiesel productionfrom canola in WA. This study considers typical WA canolagrowing practices and commercial processing parameters. Thekey is to assess the overall sustainability of producing biodieselfrom canola in WA and evaluate the potential role that canola-based biodiesel can play as an alternative transport fuel inreplacing diesel fuel in WA.

2. Methodology

2.1. Process Chain of Biodiesel Production from Canolain WA. This study considers a typical process chain of biodieselproduction from canola in WA, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.Canola is generally grown as a break crop in WA’s wheat belt,particularly the Great Southern and Lakes District, where mostof the canola grown is of herbicide- (triazine-) tolerant variet-ies.22 Details on the activities associated with growing canola

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel.: +61-8-92667592. Fax: +61-8-92662681.

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 11785–11796 11785

10.1021/ie1013162 2010 American Chemical SocietyPublished on Web 09/28/2010

in this region were obtained from field practice and are shownin Table S1 in the Supporting Information. Straw (i.e., parts ofthe canola plant other than the oilseeds) is produced as abyproduct during harvest at the end of a growing season.Harvested canola is transported to an oil extraction plant locatedin Pinjarra in WA,23 where canola oil is mechanically andchemically extracted in an expeller press and a solvent extractor,respectively,24 leaving canola meal as a byproduct. Typicalprocess parameters for extracting fuel-grade canola oil in acommercial oil extraction plant are listed in Table S2 in theSupporting Information. Canola oil is then converted intobiodiesel through a transesterification reaction, where the oil isreacted with an alcohol (usually methanol) with the aid of acatalyst (usually KOH or NaOH),25 in a transesterification plantlocated in Picton, WA.26 Glycerol is produced as a byproduct.Typical process parameters for a commercial transesterificationplant are listed in Table S3 in the Supporting Information. Thisstudy also considers the transport of canola, canola oil, andbyproducts, as well as biodiesel transport/distribution, withlocations of canola growing area, processing plants, and transportdistances shown in Figures 2 and 3 and transport details includedin Table S4 in the Supporting Information.

2.2. Energy and Carbon Footprints and Land, Water,and Labor Requirements. The energy footprint (i.e., the totalnonrenewable primary energy input per liter of biodiesel

produced) was evaluated by accounting for all activities andprocesses in the process chain (Tables S1-S4 in the SupportingInformation), involving all direct and indirect energy inputs.The primary energy associated with each energy input item wascalculated using its specific energy density, defined as the totalaccumulated nonrenewable primary energy in a unit quantityof an item;27 the results are listed in Tables S5-S7 in theSupporting Information. Utilization of byproduct gives energycredits that can be substituted for some of the total primaryenergy input. These energy credits were evaluated accordingto byproduct utilization scenario, based on similar studies inother countries, and are shown in Table S8 in the SupportingInformation. This study also considers two energy indicators.One is overall energy ratio (R), defined as the ratio of biodieselenergy output to the total nonrenewable primary energy inputof the production process. A production process with an R valueof less than 1 is not energetically feasible, as it consumes morenonrenewable primary energy than the biodiesel energy pro-duced. The other indicator is energy productivity (E),27 definedas biodiesel energy output from growing and processing onehectare (1 ha) of canola in a growing season. Whereas R mustsimply be greater than 1, E needs to be as high as possible forpractical reasons.

The estimation of carbon footprint is based on the total GHGemissions per liter of biodiesel produced, considering the three

Figure 1. Process chain of biodiesel production from canola in WA.

Figure 2. Locations of canola growing area, canola processing plants and byproduct utilizations sites as well as transport distances of canola, canola oil,biodiesel and byproduct.

11786 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 49, No. 22, 2010

main GHGssnamely, CO2, CH4, and N2Osin terms of theirCO2 equivalent (CO2-e) emissions. The CO2-e emissions werecalculated by multiplying the actual or estimated mass ofemissions of the GHGs28 associated with direct and indirectnonrenewable primary energy inputs during biodiesel productionby their 100-year global-warming potentials.29 The CO2-eemissions associated with various energy input items are shownin Tables S9-S11 in the Supporting Information. Apart fromthese emissions, the CO2-e emissions from managed croplandwere also evaluated according to the IPCC Guidelines.30 Bothdirect and indirect emissions due to fertilizer application, cropresidues, and loss of soil organic carbon (reduced organic matterlevels in the soil because of land management for cropping,which contributes to CO2-e emissions31) were evaluated usingthe Guideline’s Tier 1 method. When byproducts were utilized,CO2-e emission credits were substituted for the total emissionsand were calculated using the same method according to theamount of primary energy input substituted by byproductutilization. The CO2-e emissions savings obtained from replacingdiesel fuel with canola-based biodiesel was calculated bycomparing the carbon footprint to the CO2-e emissions fromproduction and use in medium heavy-duty trucks of conventionaldiesel28 on the basis of equivalent energy content. On this basis,1 L of canola-based biodiesel (32.86 MJ/L) replaces ∼0.92 Lof conventional diesel (35.79 MJ/L).

The land, water, and labor requirements per liter of biodieselproduced were evaluated by accounting for the land, water, andlabor directly required in the activities and processes involvedin supplying biodiesel (Tables S1-S4 in the SupportingInformation). These requirements were then multiplied by thenumber of liters of biodiesel required to replace a targetpercentage of total diesel consumption in the WA transportsector in a typical year to obtain the total land, water, and laborrequirements. The total requirements were then compared tothe actual land and water availability and labor productivity insupplying diesel fuel to the transport sector in WA in a typicalyear (Table S12 in the Supporting Information).

2.3. Net Energy Approach. The net energy approach (Figure3), suggested in previous studies,5-7 was also used in this studyto re-evaluate the land, water, and labor requirements ofbiodiesel production from canola in WA. In this approach, onlypart of the biodiesel produced (i.e., the net biodiesel output F*

in Figure 3) is available as replacement for diesel fuel. The restof the biodiesel is invested back into the production process,creating an internal loop of energy requirement, so as to makethe process not dependent on, and hence not limited by, theavailability of nonrenewable fuels. The number of liters ofbiodiesel that must be produced to provide 1 L of net biodieseldepends on the ratio of net-to-gross biodiesel output (F*/F1)which, in turn, depends on R. Not only must R be greater than1, but it must also be sufficiently high to obtain an F*/F1 ratiothat is large enough to prevent excessive amplification ofbiodiesel production and the associated land, water, and laborrequirements per liter of net biodiesel so that the productionprocess is not constrained by the land and water availabilityand by labor productivity in supplying diesel fuel to the WAtransport sector. The amplification factor, which equals F1/F*,was used to multiply the total land, water, and labor require-ments evaluated previously to obtain the total requirements toprovide net biodiesel to replace a target percentage of total dieselconsumption in the WA transport sector in a typical year. Theserequirements are then compared to the actual land and wateravailability and labor productivity in supplying diesel fuel tothe WA transport sector in a typical year.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Energy Footprint. The energy footprints, overall energyratios, and energy productivity of biodiesel production fromcanola in WA are reported in Table 1. The energy requirementsfor each stage of the production process are shown in Figure 4without byproduct utilization to identify which energy inputitems are the major contributors to the energy footprint. Canola

Figure 3. Net energy approach showing internal loop of energy requirements in biodiesel production from canola.5,6

Table 1. Energy Footprint and Overall Energy Ratio of BiodieselProduction from Canola in WA

energy footprinta

(MJ/L of biodiesel)energy

ratio (R)

without byproduct utilization 33.92 0.97 (R1)with straw utilization 29.40 1.12 (R2)with meal utilization 25.25 1.30 (R3)with meal and glycerol utilization 23.60 1.39 (R4)with straw and meal utilization 20.73 1.59 (R5)with utilization of straw, meal, and glycerol 19.07 1.72 (R6)

a Energy productivity (E) ) 19.79 GJ/ha.

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 49, No. 22, 2010 11787

growing is the most energy-intensive stage, with the energy inputassociated with fertilizer use constituting the single largestenergy input of the whole production process. Diesel fuelconsumption during field machinery operations and energy inputassociated with agricultural machineries also constitute asignificant proportion of the energy footprint. In the processingstage, energy inputs associated with the consumption of processchemicals during transesterification and with process heatrequirements during oil extraction contribute the most to theenergy footprint.

The energy footprint without byproduct utilization is higherthan the biodiesel energy produced, causing an energy loss (R1

< 1 in Table 1) and rendering the production process energeti-cally unfeasible. Energy profits are obtained only when byprod-ucts are utilized (R2-R6 > 1 in Table 1), with a highest R valueof 1.72 (R6) evaluated in this study when straw, canola meal,and glycerol are utilized as indicated by Table S8 in the

Supporting Information. Therefore, the energy profits of biodie-sel production from canola in WA are critically dependent onthe amount of byproduct that can actually be utilized. Failureto utilize canola meal and glycerol would decrease the energyprofit, and the excess byproducts would likely be regarded aswaste, whose disposal would incur energy costs that increasethe energy footprint and decrease the energy profit.

It is known that, for an alternative liquid transport fuel tomake a realistic contribution to future energy security, a scaleof production that can contribute 10-20% or more of the totalliquid transport fuel consumption would be necessary.32 Toreplace 10-20% of the total diesel fuel consumption in the WAtransport sector in a typical year, 4.88-9.76 PJ of biodieselwould have to be produced from canola annually.3 At this scale,the canola oil extraction process would generate approximately0.19-0.38 million tonnes of canola meal annually. This amountof canola meal in WA alone would supply approximately

Figure 4. Energy requirements of each stage of biodiesel production from canola in WA without byproduct utilization.


18-44% of the total Australian protein meal consumption fromall oilseed crops in a typical year.33 Similarly, 13.5-27 millionkg of glycerol would be generated by the transesterificationprocess, and it has been reported34 that, although some majorAustralian biodiesel producers utilize glycerol, most manufac-turers simply burn the byproduct. It is also known that onlylimited amounts of straw can be utilized,7,35 as the harvestingof residues from agricultural land facilitates soil erosion, whichleads to further energy costs associated with replacement ofincreased runoff water and of essential soil nutrients that arelost as a result of erosion. Consequently, only approximately10% of the total straw produced is considered for utilization inthis study (Table S8 in the Supporting Information). Therefore,the contribution of canola-based biodiesel to future energysecurity in the WA transport sector is limited and stronglydependent on the utilization of byproducts. The canola-basedbiodiesel production process consumes substantial nonrenewablefuels and leads to only limited energy profit.

3.2. Carbon Footprint. The carbon footprint of biodieselproduction from canola in WA and the CO2-e emissions savingsobtained from replacing diesel fuel with canola-based biodieselare reported in Table 2. The CO2-e emissions from each stageof the production process are shown in Figure 5 withoutbyproduct utilization to identify the major contributors of CO2-eemissions. In addition to being the most energy-intensive stage,canola growing also dominates the overall CO2-e emissions withthe CO2-e emissions from managed cropland constituting thesingle largest CO2-e emissions contribution from the wholeproduction process. The CO2-e emissions associated withproduction of fertilizers are another major contributor, followedby moderate contributions from CO2-e emissions associated withproduction of pesticides, diesel fuel consumption (mainly duringfield machinery operations), and process heat requirements(mainly during the oil extraction process). Other CO2-e emis-sions make only minor contributions.

When no byproducts are utilized or when only straw or canolameal is utilized (with or without glycerol), there is no or onlymarginal CO2-e emissions savings. This suggests that canola-based biodiesel in fact leads to little reduction in GHG emissionswhen it is used to substitute mineral diesel in the WA transportsector. Only when at least both straw and canola meal areutilized, the carbon footprint of canola-based biodiesel canprovide some opportunity to reduce CO2-e emissions from theproduction and use of conventional diesel on an equivalent-energy-content basis. The highest CO2-e emissions savings is0.52 kg of CO2-e/L of biodiesel when all of the byproducts,including straw, canola meal, and glycerol, are utilized, asindicated in Table S8 in the Supporting Information. However,as discussed in the previous section, because of the largebiodiesel production scale that is required and the soil erosionfacilitated by harvesting residues from agricultural areas, it willbe difficult to achieve a high percentage utilization of thebyproducts from the canola-based biodiesel production process

in WA. Therefore, the role of canola-based biodiesel in reducingGHG emissions from the WA transport sector is also limitedand strongly dependent on the utilization of byproducts.

3.3. Land, Water, and Labor Requirements. The land,water, and labor requirements per liter of biodiesel producedfrom canola in WA were assessed, and the results are presentedin Table 3. The land, water, and labor requirements of canola-biodiesel production as a function of the target percentage oftotal mineral diesel fuel consumption in the WA transport sectorin a typical year were calculated, and the results are listed inTable 4. The results are also compared to the actual land andwater availability and labor productivity in supplying diesel fuelto the transport sector in WA in a typical year (Table S12 inthe Supporting Information).

The results in Table 4 clearly suggest that canola-basedbiodiesel can only play a minor role in the future energy securityand GHG emissions reduction in the WA transport sector. Forexample, to replace 10% of the total diesel fuel consumptionin the WA transport sector in a typical year, approximately 60%of the cropland area used for growing oilseeds (for foodproduction) in WA in a typical year must be dedicated to canolagrowing for biodiesel production. Therefore, most of annualcanola harvest would be used for biodiesel production, and morearable land would need to be provided for growing canola forother purposes, such as production of edible oil, causing seriouscompetition with food production using arable land. In fact, evena 2% replacement requires 12% of the current cropland areafor growing oilseeds (for food production) in WA in a typicalyear to be dedicated to canola growing for biodiesel production.Therefore, the land requirement is expected to be the majorconstraint on the realization of canola-based biodiesel’s potentialas a sustainable transport fuel to replace diesel fuel in the WAtransport sector. The results in Table 4 indicate that, to minimizeits competition with food production, canola-based biodieselshould only replace less than 2% of the total annual diesel fuelconsumption in WA.

Because of the rain-fed cropping system in growing canolain WA,22 the water requirement of the production process mainlyderives from the canola processing stages (Tables S2 and S3 inthe Supporting Information). As a result, only a very smallfraction of the total water resource availability in WA in a typicalyear, equivalent to less than 1% of the total water consumptionin the WA agricultural sector, is required to be dedicated to theproduction process. Therefore, the water requirement seems tobe insignificant, although it might become a constraining factorduring periods of drought. This is because the amount of totalannual water resource strongly depends on the amount of rainfalland the variability of Australian rainfall from year to year andseason to season.2

In terms of labor requirement, 9.15 × 10-3 h of labor isrequired per liter of canola-based biodiesel (Table 3). This isthe total number of direct labor hours required in producingbiodiesel, which includes the labor hours during canola growing,oil extraction, transesterification, and transport activities (TablesS1-S4 in the Supporting Information). This labor requirementis compared to 1.52 × 10-2 h of direct labor required per literof diesel fuel supplied to the WA transport sector (Table S12in the Supporting Information), which includes the labor hoursduring oil mining/extraction, refinery, and diesel distribution.Within the limited fraction of diesel fuel that might replacedby biodiesel without causing significant competition for arableland, the fact that fewer labor hour are required in producingbiodiesel than diesel (higher throughput for biodiesel than fordiesel fuel, as shown in Table 4) means that there would be

Table 2. Carbon Footprint of Biodiesel Production from Canola inWA and CO2-e Emissions Savings Obtained by Replacing DieselFuel with Canola-Based Biodiesel

carbon footprint(kg of CO2-e/L

of biodiesel)

CO2-e emissions savings(kg of CO2-e/L

of biodiesel)

without byproduct utilization 3.72 -0.74with straw utilization 3.21 -0.22with meal utilization 3.15 -0.16with meal and glycerol utilization 2.98 0.0046with straw and meal utilization 2.63 0.35with utilization of straw,

meal, and glycerol2.47 0.52


enough biodiesel to support transport activities that are usuallysupported by diesel fuel in the WA transport sector.

3.4. Net Energy Analysis. The limited energy profit obtainedin the biodiesel production process means that the contributionof canola-based biodiesel to future energy security in the WAtransport sector is still constrained by the availability ofnonrenewable fuels to supply energy for the production process.As already pointed out, the net energy approach is used to makethe process not dependent on nonrenewable fuels by investingsome of the produced biodiesel back into the process, leavingonly the net biodiesel available as replacement for diesel fuel,as shown in Figure 3. The ratio of net-to-gross output ofbiodiesel (F*/F1 in Figure 3) associated with the maximum

Figure 5. CO2-e emissions from each stage of biodiesel production from canola in WA without byproduct utilization (bd ) biodiesel).

Table 3. Land, Water, and Labor Requirements of BiodieselProduction from Canola in WA

requirement units value

land 10-3 ha/L of biodiesel 1.66a

water L of water/L of biodiesel 2.44b

labor 10-3 labor h/L of biodiesel 9.15c

a Calculated from canola, canola oil, and biodiesel yields (TablesS1-S3 in the Supporting Information). b Calculated from canolaprocessing water requirements (Tables S2 and S3 in the SupportingInformation), assuming 80% water supply efficiency.7 c Calculated fromlabor hour requirements during canola growing and processing andduring canola, canola oil, and biodiesel transport (Tables S1-S4 in theSupporting Information).


overall energy ratio (utilization of straw, meal, and glycerol)evaluated in this study (i.e., R6 ) 1.72, Table 1) is 0.42, whichmeans that, to deliver 1 net MJ of biodiesel, 2.38 MJ of biodieselmust be produced. The land, water, and labor requirements todeliver net canola-based biodiesel to replace diesel fuel con-sumption in the WA transport sector in a typical year arereported in Table 5 and are compared to the actual land andwater availability and labor productivity in supplying diesel fuelto the transport sector in WA in a typical year (Table S12 inthe Supporting Information).

Table 5 shows that even a 1% replacement of the total dieselfuel consumption by net biodiesel requires that over 14% ofthe cropland area used for growing oilseeds in WA in a typicalyear be dedicated to canola growing for biodiesel production.The competition for arable land use between biodiesel and food

production is even more severe than discussed previously,making the contribution of canola-based biodiesel trivial.

There would also be little CO2-e emissions savings fromreplacing diesel fuel in the transport sector by net biodiesel.Investing some of the produced biodiesel to make the productionprocess independent of nonrenewable fuels avoids CO2-eemissions associated with their use in the process.7 Only CO2-eemissions from managed cropland (Figure 5) are amplifiedbecause of the net-to-gross ratio in producing net biodiesel.However, Figure 5 indicates that CO2-e emissions from managedcropland constitute the single largest emissions contribution fromthe whole production process and amplification by a factor of2.38 because of the net-to-gross ratio yields CO2-e emissionsof 3.71 kg of CO2-e/net L of biodiesel, which is almostequivalent to the carbon footprint without byproduct utilization

Table 4. Land, Water, and Labor Requirements of Canola-Based Biodiesel Production to Replace Diesel Fuel Consumption in the WATransport Sector in a Typical Year

percentage of annual diesel fuel consumption replaced

1 2 10 20 50 100

biodiesel production requirement (GL/year)a 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.30 0.74 1.49land requirement

106 ha/yearb 0.02 0.05 0.25 0.49 1.23 2.47as percentage of total cropland area in WAc 0.20 0.41 2.04 4.08 10.19 20.39as percentage of total area sown for oilseeds in WAd 6.01 12.03 60.14 120.27 300.68 601.37

water requirementGL/yeare 0.04 0.07 0.36 0.73 1.81 3.63as percentage of total water resource in WAf <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01as percentage of total water use in WAg <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.24as percentage of water use in WA agricultural sectorh <0.01 0.01 0.07 0.14 0.34 0.68

labor requirement (106 labor h/year)i 0.14 0.27 1.36 2.72 6.80 13.60biodiesel throughput (GJ/h)j 3.59 3.59 3.59 3.59 3.59 3.59diesel throughput (GJ/h)k 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36

a Calculated from a total of 48.8 PJ of diesel fuel consumed in the WA transport sector in 2006-2007.3 b Multiplication of land requirement (Table3) by biodiesel production requirement. c Comparison of land requirement (ha/year) to the total cropland area used for production of all crops in WA ina typical year (Table S12 in the Supporting Information). d Comparison of land requirement (ha/year) to the land area used for oilseeds production inWA in a typical year (Table S12 in the Supporting Information). e Multiplication of water requirement (Table 3) by biodiesel production requirement.f Comparison of water requirement (GL/year) to the total amount of water resource in WA in a typical year (Table S12 in the Supporting Information).g Comparison of water requirement (GL/year) to the total amount of water consumption by all economic sectors in WA in a typical year (Table S12 inthe Supporting Information). h Comparison of water requirement (GL/year) to the water consumption in WA agricultural sector in a typical year (TableS12 in the Supporting Information). i Multiplication of labor requirement (Table 3) by biodiesel production requirement. j Division of biodieselproduction requirement by labor requirement (h/year). k This is the diesel energy throughput per hour of labor in supplying diesel fuel to the WAtransport sector (Table S12 in the Supporting Information), to be compared to the biodiesel throughput.

Table 5. Land, Water, and Labor Requirements to Deliver Net Canola-Based Biodiesel to Replace Diesel Fuel Consumption in the WATransport Sector in a Typical Year

percentage of annual diesel fuel consumption replaced

1 2 10 20 50 100

biodiesel production requirement (GL/year)a 0.04 0.07 0.35 0.71 1.77 3.54land requirement

106 ha/yearb 0.06 0.12 0.59 1.18 2.94 5.88as percentage of total cropland area in WAc 0.49 0.97 4.86 9.72 24.30 48.61as percentage of total area sown for oilseeds in WAd 14.34 28.67 143.37 286.74 716.84 1433.68

water requirementGL/yeare 0.09 0.17 0.86 1.73 4.32 8.65as percentage of total water resource in WAf <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.02as percentage of total water use in WAg <0.01 0.01 0.06 0.12 0.29 0.58as percentage of water use in WA agricultural sectorh 0.02 0.03 0.16 0.32 0.81 1.62

labor requirement (106 labor h/year)i 0.32 0.65 3.24 6.48 16.21 32.42net biodiesel throughput (net GJ/h)j 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51diesel throughput (GJ/h)k 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36

a Calculated from a total of 48.8 PJ of diesel fuel consumed in the WA transport sector in 2006-20073 with a multiplication factor of 2.38.b Multiplication of land requirement (Table 3) by biodiesel production requirement. c Comparison of land requirement (ha/year) to the total cropland areaused for production of all crops in WA in a typical year (Table S12 in the Supporting Information). d Comparison of land requirement (ha/year) to theland area used for oilseeds production in WA in a typical year (Table S12 in the Supporting Information). e Multiplication of water requirement (Table3) by biodiesel production requirement. f Comparison of water requirement (GL/year) to the total amount of water resource in WA in a typical year(Table S12 in the Supporting Information). g Comparison of water requirement (GL/year) to the total amount of water consumption by all economicsectors in WA in a typical year (Table S12 in the Supporting Information). h Comparison of water requirement (GL/year) to the water consumption inWA agricultural sector in a typical year (Table S12 in the Supporting Information). i Multiplication of labor requirement (Table 3) by biodieselproduction requirement. j Division of net biodiesel production by labor requirement (h/year). k This is the diesel energy throughput per hour of labor insupplying diesel fuel to the WA transport sector (Table S12 in the Supporting Information), to be compared to the net biodiesel throughput.


Tab

le6.

Ene

rgy

and

Car

bon

Foo

tpri

nts

and

Lan

d,W

ater

,an

dL

abor

Req

uire

men

tsof

Bio

dies

elP

rodu

ctio

nfr

omC

anol

a(R

apes

eed)

inW

Aan

dO

ther

Reg

ions

coun

try/

regi

onla

nd(1

0-3

ha/L

biod

iese

l)w

ater

(Lw

ater

/Lbi

odie

sel)

labo

r(h

/Lbi

odes

el)

ener

gy(M

J/L

biod

iese

l)ca

rbon

(kg

ofC

O2-

e/L

biod

iese

l)no

tes

onen

ergy

and

carb

onfo

otpr

ints

WA

(thi

sst

udy)

1.66

2.44

0.00

915

33.9

2(R

1)

0.97

)3.

72(-

0.74

a)

with

out

bypr

oduc

tut

iliza

tion

29.4

0(R

2)

1.12

)3.

21(-

0.22

a)

with

stra

wut

iliza

tion

25.2

5(R

3)

1.30

)3.

15(-

0.16

a)

with

mea

lut

iliza

tion

23.6

0(R

4)

1.39

)2.

98(0

.004

6a)

with

mea

lan

dgl

ycer

olut

iliza

tion

20.7

3(R

5)

1.59

)2.

63(0

.35a

)w

ithst

raw

and

mea

lut

iliza

tion

19.0

7(R

6)

1.72

)2.

47(0

.52a

)w

ithst

raw

,m

eal,

and

glyc

erol

utili

zatio

nE)

19.7

9G

J/ha

Aus

tral

ia11

1.44

(1.4

1a)

allo

catio

nof

som

eC

O2-

eem

issi

onfr

omca

nola

grow

ing

and

oil

extr

actio

nto

cano

laoi

lan

dm

eal

acco

rdin

gto

yiel

dsan

dm

arke

tpr

ices

Ger

man

y16

0.77

12.4

7(R

4)

2.62

)1.

22(1

.66a

)al

loca

tion

ofso

me

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

tom

eal

and

glyc

erol

acco

rdin

gto

yiel

dsan

den

ergy

cont

ents

E)

42.5

3G

J/ha

Swed

en,1

2

smal

l-sc

ale

prod

uctio

n1.

2119

.28

(R1)

1.76

)2.

97no

allo

catio

nof

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

toby

prod

uct

12.0

3(R

4)

2.82

)1.

73al

loca

tion

ofso

me

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

tom

eal

and

glyc

erol

acco

rdin

gto

yiel

dsan

dm

arke

tpr

ices

9.99

(R4)

3.39

)1.

37al

loca

tion

ofso

me

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

tom

eal

and

glyc

erol

acco

rdin

gto

yiel

dsan

den

ergy

cont

ents

E)

27.9

9G

J/ha

Swed

en,1

2

med

ium

-sca

lepr

oduc

tion

1.10

16.8

4(R

1)

2.01

)2.

69no

allo

catio

nof

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

toby

prod

uct

11.0

8(R

4)

3.06

)1.

66al

loca

tion

ofso

me

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

tom

eal

and

glyc

erol

acco

rdin

gto

yiel

dsan

dm

arke

tpr

ices

9.38

(R4)

3.61

)1.

34al

loca

tion

ofso

me

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

tom

eal

and

glyc

erol

acco

rdin

gto

yiel

dsan

den

ergy

cont

ents

E)

30.8

8G

J/ha

Swed

en,1

2

larg

e-sc

ale

prod

uctio

n0.

8413

.79

(R1)

2.46

)2.

10no

allo

catio

nof

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

toby

prod

uct

10.6

0(R

4)

3.19

)1.

55al

loca

tion

ofso

me

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

tom

eal

and

glyc

erol

acco

rdin

gto

yiel

dsan

dm

arke

tpr

ices

9.62

(R4)

3.52

)1.

36al

loca

tion

ofso

me

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

tom

eal

and

glyc

erol

acco

rdin

gto

yiel

dsan

den

ergy

cont

ents

;ca

rbon

foot

prin

tco

rres

pond

sto

aC

O2-

eem

issi

ons

savi

ngs

of0.

09kg

ofC

O2-

e/M

J eng

ine

E)

40.3

4G

J/ha

Lith

uani

a15

0.84-

1.47

(eva

luat

edfo

ra

theo

retic

alra

pese

edyi

eld

rang

eof

2-3.

5t/h

a)b

R1)

1.04-

1.59

eval

uate

dfo

ra

theo

retic

alra

pese

edyi

eld

rang

eof

2-3.

5t/h

a;b

only

biod

iese

len

ergy

cont

ent

cons

ider

edR

4)

1.76-

2.68

eval

uate

dfo

ra

theo

retic

alra

pese

edyi

eld

rang

eof

2-3.

5t/h

a;b

ener

gyco

nten

tsof

mea

lan

dgl

ycer

olad

ded

toth

atof

biod

iese

lR

6)

3.80-

5.81

eval

uate

dfo

ra

theo

retic

alra

pese

edyi

eld

rang

eof

2-3.

5t/h

a;b

ener

gyco

nten

tsof

stra

w,

mea

l,an

dgl

ycer

olad

ded

toth

atof

biod

iese

l


Tab

le6.

Con

tinu

ed

coun

try/

regi

onla

nd(1

0-3

ha/L

biod

iese

l)w

ater

(Lw

ater

/Lbi

odie

sel)

labo

r(h

/Lbi

odes

el)

ener

gy(M

J/L

biod

iese

l)ca

rbon

(kg

ofC

O2-

e/L

biod

iese

l)no

tes

onen

ergy

and

carb

onfo

otpr

ints

E)

22.6

2-39

.58

GJ/

haev

alua

ted

for

ath

eore

tical

rape

seed

yiel

dra

nge

of2-

3.5

t/hab

Bel

gium

14

0.55

cE)

52.3

1G

J/ha

eval

uate

dw

ithen

viro

nmen

tal

impa

ctcr

edits

assi

gned

tom

eal

and

glyc

erol

Bel

gium

20

55%

asa

mea

sure

ofca

rbon

foot

prin

t,th

egr

eenh

ouse

effe

ctof

the

biod

iese

llif

ecy

cle

ison

ly55

%th

atof

dies

elfu

elon

the

basi

sof

equi

vale

ntnu

mbe

rof

kilo

met

ers

trav

eled

byan

iden

tical

car;

gree

nhou

seef

fect

ofbi

odie

sel

eval

uate

dw

ithan

unsp

ecifi

edm

etho

dof

allo

catio

nto

bypr

oduc

tsU

.K.,1

3bi

odie

sel

prod

uctio

nfr

omw

inte

rra

pese

ed0.

7424

.18

(R1)

1.35

)1.

24(1

.46a

)on

lybi

odie

sel

ener

gyco

nten

tco

nsid

ered

whe

nev

alua

ting

R1;

carb

onfo

otpr

int

and

corr

espo

ndin

gC

O2-

eem

issi

ons

savi

ngs

base

don

CO

2em

issi

ons

and

eval

uate

dw

ithou

tC

O2

emis

sion

cred

itfr

omby

prod

uct;

noda

tapr

ovid

edfo

rot

her

GH

Gs

R2)

2.50

ener

gyco

nten

tof

stra

wad

ded

toth

atof

biod

iese

lR

3)

2.55

ener

gyco

nten

tof

mea

lad

ded

toth

atof

biod

iese

lR

4)

2.62

ener

gyco

nten

tsof

mea

lan

dgl

ycer

olad

ded

toth

atof

biod

iese

lR

6)

3.77

ener

gyco

nten

tsof

stra

w,

mea

l,an

dgl

ycer

olad

ded

toth

atof

biod

iese

l1.

11(1

.58a

)ba

sed

onC

O2

emis

sion

san

dev

alua

ted

with

CO

2

emis

sion

cred

itfr

omut

iliza

tion

ofst

raw

for

rape

seed

dryi

ngan

dpr

oces

sing

;no

data

prov

ided

for

othe

rG

HG

sE)

43.9

3G

J/ha

U.K

.,13

biod

iese

lpr

oduc

tion

from

spri

ngra

pese

ed1.

0824

.23

(R1)

1.35

)on

lybi

odie

sel

ener

gyco

nten

tco

nsid

ered

whe

nev

alua

ting

R1

R2)

2.50

ener

gyco

nten

tof

stra

wad

ded

toth

atof

biod

iese

lR

3)

2.55

ener

gyco

nten

tof

mea

lad

ded

toth

atof

biod

iese

lR

4)

2.61

ener

gyco

nten

tsof

mea

lan

dgl

ycer

olad

ded

toth

atof

biod

iese

lR

6)

3.77

ener

gyco

nten

tsof

stra

w,

mea

l,an

dgl

ycer

olad

ded

toth

atof

biod

iese

lE)

30.2

0G

J/ha

U.K

.10

0.52-

0.90

(eva

luat

edfo

ra

rang

eof

win

ter

rape

seed

grow

ing

cond

ition

san

dpr

oces

sing

para

met

ers)

R1)

0.67-

2.23

eval

uate

dfo

ra

rang

eof

win

ter

rape

seed

grow

ing

cond

ition

san

dpr

oces

sing

para

met

ers;

only

biod

iese

len

ergy

cont

ent

cons

ider

ed

R3)

0.88-

3.83

eval

uate

dfo

ra

rang

eof

win

ter

rape

seed

grow

ing

cond

ition

san

dpr

oces

sing

para

met

ers;

ener

gyco

nten

tof

mea

lad

ded

toth

atof

biod

iese

lR

4)

0.91-

3.95

eval

uate

dfo

ra

rang

eof

win

ter

rape

seed

grow

ing

cond

ition

san

dpr

oces

sing

para

met

ers;

ener

gyco

nten

tsof

mea

lan

dgl

ycer

olad

ded

toth

atof

biod

iese

lR

6)

2.22-

9.18

eval

uate

dfo

ra

rang

eof

win

ter

rape

seed

grow

ing

cond

ition

san

dpr

oces

sing

para

met

ers;

ener

gyco

nten

tsof

stra

w,

mea

l,an

dgl

ycer

olad

ded

toth

atof

biod

iese

lE)

36.3

0-63

.04

MJ/

haev

alua

ted

for

ara

nge

ofw

inte

rra

pese

edgr

owin

gco

nditi

ons

and

proc

essi

ngpa

ram

eter

sU

.K.1

90.

5817

.78

(R1)

1.78

)on

lybi

odie

sel

ener

gyco

nten

tco

nsid

ered

whe

nev

alua

ting

R1


Tab

le6.

Con

tinu

ed

coun

try/

regi

onla

nd(1

0-3

ha/L

biod

iese

l)w

ater

(Lw

ater

/Lbi

odie

sel)

labo

r(h

/Lbi

odes

el)

ener

gy(M

J/L

biod

iese

l)ca

rbon

(kg

ofC

O2-

e/L

biod

iese

l)no

tes

onen

ergy

and

carb

onfo

otpr

ints

17.7

8(R

3)

1.82

)1.

53m

eal

utili

zed

asor

gani

cfe

rtili

zer

onfa

rmw

ithno

addi

tiona

len

ergy

inpu

t;en

ergy

valu

eof

mea

lba

sed

onits

repl

acem

ent

valu

e(e

nerg

yre

quir

edto

prod

uce

the

repl

aced

inor

gani

cfe

rtili

zer)

and

adde

dto

biod

iese

len

ergy

cont

ent

toev

alua

teR

3;ca

rbon

foot

prin

tba

sed

onC

O2

and

N2O

emis

sion

s18

.16

(R5)

3.71

)1.

60m

eal

utili

zed

asor

gani

cfe

rtili

zer

onfa

rmw

ithno

addi

tiona

len

ergy

inpu

t;st

raw

burn

edas

fuel

;en

ergy

valu

eof

mea

lba

sed

onits

repl

acem

ent

valu

e(e

nerg

yre

quir

edto

prod

uce

the

repl

aced

inor

gani

cfe

rtili

zer)

and

adde

d,al

ong

with

stra

wen

ergy

cont

ent,

tobi

odie

sel

ener

gyco

nten

tto

eval

uate

R3;

carb

onfo

otpr

int

base

don

CO

2an

dN

2Oem

issi

ons

E)

54.3

5G

J/ha

U.K

.17

0.55

17.7

6(R

4)

1.85

)1.

76(1

.09a

)al

loca

tion

ofso

me

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

tom

eal

(sol

das

anim

alfe

ed)

and

glyc

erol

(sol

dfo

rot

her

uses

)ac

cord

ing

toth

eir

yiel

dsan

dm

arke

tpr

ices

1.36

(R4)

24.0

3)1.

23(1

.62a

)su

bstit

utio

nen

ergy

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

cred

itsfr

omm

eal

utili

zatio

nin

cofir

ing

inco

al-fi

red

pow

erst

atio

n;so

me

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

also

allo

cate

dto

glyc

erol

acco

rdin

gto

itsyi

eld

and

mar

ket

pric

eE)

59.1

6G

J/ha

U.K

.,21

smal

l-sc

ale

prod

uctio

n0.

700.

5317

.67

(R4)

1.86

)1.

93(0

.92a

)al

loca

tion

ofso

me

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

tom

eal

(sol

das

anim

alfe

ed)

and

glyc

erol

(sol

dto

phar

mac

eutic

alin

dust

ry)

acco

rdin

gto

thei

ryi

elds

and

mar

ket

pric

esE)

47.2

2G

J/ha

U.K

.,21

larg

e-sc

ale

prod

uctio

n0.

632.

2918

.13

(R4)

1.81

)2.

13(0

.73a

)al

loca

tion

ofso

me

ener

gyin

put

and

CO

2-e

emis

sion

tom

eal

(sol

das

anim

alfe

ed)

and

glyc

erol

(sol

dto

phar

mac

eutic

alin

dust

ry)

acco

rdin

gto

thei

ryi

elds

and

mar

ket

pric

esE)

51.8

1G

J/ha

Aus

tria

,Fr

ance

,Sw

itzer

land

,It

aly1

3R

1)

1.3-

2.1

eval

uate

dw

ithou

tth

erm

alcr

edits

from

bypr

oduc

t

R4)

2-3

eval

uate

dw

ithth

erm

alcr

edits

from

mea

lan

dgl

ycer

olE

urop

e18

4.0-

4.8

allo

catio

nof

som

ebi

ogen

icC

O2-

eem

issi

onto

mea

l-

(1.4-

2.2)

aac

cord

ing

toits

yiel

dan

dm

arke

tpr

ice.

aV

alue

sin

pare

nthe

ses

are

CO

2-e

emis

sion

ssa

ving

sfr

omre

plac

ing

dies

elfu

elw

ithbi

odie

sel

onth

eba

sis

ofeq

uiva

lent

ener

gyco

nten

t.b

Act

ual

aver

age

rape

seed

yiel

din

Lith

uani

ais

1.8

t/ha.

15

cW

ithou

tar

able

land

cred

itfr

omby

prod

ucts

,th

ela

ndre

quir

emen

tto

prod

uce

enou

ghbi

odie

sel

toco

ver

100

kmby

am

iddl

e-si

zean

dre

cent

car

is35

m2 .

The

corr

espo

ndin

gva

lue

with

arab

lela

ndcr

edit

from

mea

lis

5.5

m2 .1

4


(3.72 kg of CO2-e/L of biodiesel; see Table 2), resulting inapparently no CO2-e emissions savings.

In terms of labor requirements, 2.18 × 10-2 h of direct laboris required per net liter of biodiesel (amplification of the laborrequirement in Table 3 by a factor of 2.38). This labor require-ment is higher than the 1.52 × 10-2 h of direct labor requiredper liter of diesel fuel supplied to the WA transport sector, givinga lower net throughput for biodiesel than for diesel fuel (Table5), which suggests that there would not be enough net biodieselto support transport activities that are usually supported by dieselfuel in the WA transport sector.

For these reasons, replacing diesel fuel in the WA transportsector by net biodiesel is not a feasible option, despite theinsignificant water requirement (Table 5) of the productionprocess. However, as mentioned previously, the water require-ment might also become prohibitive during periods of droughtbecause of the variability of Australian rainfall.2

3.5. Comparisons with Other Regions and Implications.Table 6 summarizes the energy and carbon footprints, as wellas land, water, and labor requirements, of biodiesel productionfrom canola in WA evaluated in this study and those in previousstudies (when data were available) for other regions. It can beseen in Table 6 that none of the past studies systematicallyevaluated carbon and energy footprints or land, water, and laborrequirements. Overall, canola-based biodiesel production has asomewhat higher energy footprint in WA than in other regions.Although the difference in energy footprint is affected by manysite-specific factors, the lower canola yield per hectare in WAthan in other regions might have been the most significant reasonfor the higher WA energy footprint. Table 7 shows that the effectof a change in the canola yield on R6, which is directly linkedto the energy footprint, is more significant than the effects ofany changes in the main energy input items indicated in Figure4. Therefore, the differences in other parameters between WAand other regions might not be as significant in determiningthe higher energy footprint in WA.

The lower canola yield per hectare is directly reflected in thelower E value in WA than in other regions, which, in turn, leadsto a significantly higher land requirement in WA than in otherregions. Because Figure 5 shows that CO2-e emissions frommanaged cropland constitute the single largest CO2-e emissionscontribution from the whole production process, the lower canolayield per hectare in WA than in other regions might also be themost significant reason for the somewhat higher WA carbonfootprint.

In general, all of the studies in Table 6 are in agreement thatthe agricultural stage dominates the energy and carbon footprintsof biodiesel production. It should be noted, however, that suchcomparisons can only be made with great care; particular attentionmust be paid to site-specific parameters, to byproduct utilization,and to the methods by which energy requirements and CO2-eemissions are allocated and/or credited for byproduct utilization.

Overall, canola-based biodiesel is not sustainable for replacinga significant fraction of diesel fuel in the WA transport sector.Its role in WA’s future transport fuel industry is minor. In thetransition to future sustainable biofuels supply, canola-basedbiodiesel might offer immediate opportunities to introduce newtransport fuels in the marketplace and develop familiarity amongconsumers. A 2% replacement requires over 12% (28% ifprocess energy is replaced by net biodiesel; see Tables 4 and5) of the current cropland area for growing oilseeds (for foodproduction) in WA in a typical year to be dedicated to canolagrowing for biodiesel production. Therefore, under the currentconditions in WA, canola-based biodiesel seems to be limitedto replace <2% of the total mineral diesel consumption in WA’stransport sector. A higher replacement will lead to significantcompetition with food production.

4. Conclusions

This article reports a systematic evaluation of the energy andcarbon footprints and land, water, and labor requirements ofbiodiesel production from canola in Western Australia (WA).The results presented in this study clearly show that canola-based biodiesel is not sustainable as a replacement for asignificant fraction of diesel fuel in the WA transport sector.Canola-based biodiesel appears to be limited to <2% replace-ment of total diesel consumption in WA’s transport sector toavoid strong competition for arable land use with food produc-tion. Within this limit, canola-based biodiesel can offer limitedenergy and CO2-e emissions savings and immediate opportuni-ties for introducing new transport fuels in the marketplace anddeveloping familiarity among the consumers in our transitionto a future sustainable biofuel supply.

Acknowledgment

This work is partially supported by the Centre for Researchinto Energy for Sustainable Transport (CREST) through theWestern Australian Government Centre of Excellence Program.

Supporting Information Available: Tables listing typicalactivities associated with canola growing in the Great Southernand Lakes District, WA (Table S1); typical process parameters ofa canola oil extraction plant (Table S2) and a vegetable oiltransesterification plant (Table S3); typical transport activityparameters in the process chain of biodiesel production from canolain WA (Table S4); specific energy densities of fuels, electricity,and process heat (Table S5), of agricultural machinery/equipment,process plant/equipment, transport vehicle, and labor (Table S6),and of process chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticides (Table S7);energy credits from byproduct utilization (Table S8); CO2-eemissions associated with consumption of diesel fuel, electricity,and process heat (Table S9), with the use of agricultural machines/equipment, process plants/equipment, transport vehicles, and labor(Table S10), and with the use of process chemicals, fertilizers, andpesticides (Table S11); and land and water availability and laborproductivity in supplying diesel fuel to the transport sector in WAin a typical year (Table S12). This material is available free ofcharge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

Table 7. Effect of Changing Canola Yield and Main Energy InputItems on the Overall Energy Ratio of Canola-Based BiodieselProduction in WA when All Byproducts Are Utilized (R6)

parameter changea R6b

canola yield +40% 2.50 (+45.2%)c

-40% 0.99 (-42.1%)c

nitrogen fertilizer application rate +40% 1.42 (-17.6%)c

-40% 2.19 (+27.1%)c

fuel use during field machinery operations +40% 1.61 (-6.8%)c

-40% 1.86 (+7.8%)c

methanol consumption during transesterification +40% 1.58 (-8.1%)c

-40% 1.89 (+9.6%)c

energy accumulated in field machinery +40% 1.62 (-6.1%)c

-40% 1.84 (+7.0%)c

a Percentage increase or decrease in typical values of canola yieldand main energy input items considered in this study. b Value of R6 afterchange in canola yield and main energy input items. c Values inparentheses are the percentage increase or decrease in R6 after change incanola yield and main energy input items when compared to the valueof R6 in Table 1.


Literature Cited

(1) World Energy Outlook 2006; International Energy Agency (IEA):Paris, 2006.

(2) Pink, B. Year Book Australia 2008; Australian Bureau of Statistics:Canberra, Australia, 2008.

(3) Australian energy consumption, by industry and fuel typesenergyunits. In Australian Energy StatisticssAustralian Energy Update; AustralianBureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE): Canberra,Australia, 2008; Table F.

(4) BP Statistical ReView of World Energy June 2006; BP: London, 2006.(5) Giampietro, M.; Ulgiati, S. Integrated Assessment of Large-Scale

Biofuel Production. Crit. ReV. Plant Sci. 2005, 24, 365–384.(6) Giampietro, M.; Ulgiati, S.; Pimentel, D. Feasibility of Large-Scale

Biofuel Production. BioScience 1997, 47, 587–600.(7) Ulgiati, S. A Comprehensive Energy and Economic Assessment of

Biofuels: When “Green” Is Not Enough. Crit. ReV. Plant Sci. 2001, 20,71–106.

(8) Duff, J.; Sermon, D.; Walton, G.; Mangano, P.; Newman, C.; Walden,K.; Barbetti, M.; Addison, B.; Eksteen, D.; Pol, E.; Leach, B. GrowingWestern Canola: An OVerView of Canola Production in Western Australia;Oilseeds Industry Association of Western Australia: New South Wales,Australia, 2006.

(9) Giffard, G.; Llewellyn, P.; Redman, T.; Hallet, N.; Coggin, D.;Forrest, J.; Farrar, D.; Head, G.; Stewart, T.; Bowran, D.; Leadbeater, S.;Tan, R.; Goncalves, L.; Dagostino, J.; Wilkins, A. Western Australia BiofuelsTaskforce Report; Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia:South Perth, Australia, 2007.

(10) Batchelor, S. E.; Booth, E. J.; Walker, K. C. Energy Analysis ofRape Methyl Ester (RME) Production from Winter Oilseed Rape. Ind. CropsProd. 1995, 4, 193–202.

(11) Beer, T.; Grant, T.; Morgan, G.; Lapszewicz, J.; Anyon, P.;Edwards, J.; Nelson, P.; Watson, H.; Williams, D. Life-Cycle EmissionsAnalysis of AlternatiVe Fuels for HeaVy Vehicles (Stage 2); Report EV45A/2/F3C; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation(CSIRO): Aspendale, Victoria, Australia, 2002.

(12) Bernesson, S.; Nilsson, D.; Hansson, P.-A. A Limited LCAComparing Large- and Small-Scale Production of Rape Methyl Ester (RME)under Swedish Conditions. Biomass Bioenergy 2004, 26, 545–559.

(13) Culshaw, F.; Butler, C. A ReView of the Potential of Biodiesel asa Transprot Fuel; Report ETSU-R-71; Energy Technology Support Unit,HMSO: London, 1992.

(14) Halleux, H.; Lassaux, S.; Renzoni, R.; Germain, A. ComparativeLife Cycle Assessment of Two Biofuels: Ethanol from Sugar Beet andRapeseed Methyl Ester. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008, 13, 184–190.

(15) Janulis, P. Reduction of Energy Consumption in Biodiesel FuelLife Cycle. Renew. Energy 2004, 29, 861–871.

(16) Kaltschmitt, M.; Reinhardt, G. A.; Stelzer, T. Life Cycle Analysisof Biofuels Under Different Environmental Aspects. Biomass Bioenergy1997, 12, 121–134.

(17) Mortimer, N. D.; Elsayed, M. A. North East Biofuel Supply ChainCarbon Intensity Assessment.; North Energy Associates Ltd.: Sheffield, U.K.,2006.

(18) Reijnders, L.; Huijbregts, M. A. J. Biogenic Greenhouse GasEmissions Linked to the Life Cycles of Biodiesel Derived from EuropeanRapeseed and Brazilian Soybeans. J. Cleaner Prod. 2008, 16, 1943–1948.

(19) Richards, I. R. Energy Balances in the Growth of Oilseed Rapefor Biodiesel and of Wheat for Bioethanol; Levington Agriculture Ltd.:Ipswich, U.K., 2000.

(20) Spirinckx, C.; Ceuterick, D. Biodiesel and Fossil Diesel Fuel:Comparative Life Cycle Assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1996, 1,127–132.

(21) Stephenson, A. L.; Dennis, J. S.; Scott, S. A. Improving theSustainability of the Production of Biodiesel from Oilseed Rape in the U.K.Process Saf. EnViron. Prot. 2008, 86, 427–440.

(22) Carmody, P.; Herbert, A. Profitable Canola Production in the GreatSouthern and Lakes District; Bulletin 4411; Department of Agriculture andFood Western Australia: South Perth, Australia, 2001.

(23) Riverland Oilseeds. http://www.riverland.com.au/ (accessed Nov25, 2009).

(24) Anjou, K. Manufacture of Rapeseed Oil and Meal. In Rapeseed:CultiVation, Composition, Processing and Utilization; Appelqvist, L.-A. ,Ohlson, R. , Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1972.

(25) Haas, M. J.; Foglia, T. A. Biodiesel Production: Alternate Feed-stocks and Technologies for Biodiesel Production. In The BiodieselHandbook; Knothe, G., Gerpen, J. V.; Krahl, J., Eds.; AOCS Press:Champaign, IL, 2005.

(26) ARF Facilities. http://www.arfuels.com.au/default.asp?V_DOC_ID)906 (accessed Dec 4, 2009).

(27) Wu, H.; Fu, Q.; Giles, R.; Bartle, J. Production of Mallee Biomassin Western Australia: Energy Balance Analysis. Energy Fuels 2008, 22,190–198.

(28) Wang, M. GREET 1.8c.0; Argonne National Laboratory: Argonne,IL, 2009.

(29) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change; IPCC FourthAssessment Report; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.

(30) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas InVentories;Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Geneva, Switzerland,2006; Vol. 4, Chapter 11.

(31) Dalal, R. C.; Chan, K. Y. Soil Organic Matter in Rainfed CroppingSystems of the Australian Cereal Belt. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2001, 39, 435–464.

(32) O’Connell, D.; Batten, D.; O’Connor, M.; May, B.; Raison, J.;Keating, B.; Beer, T.; Braid, A.; Haritos, V.; Begley, C.; Poole, M.; Poulton,P.; Graham, S.; Dunlop, M.; Grant, T.; Campbell, P.; Lamb, D. Biofuels inAustraliasIssues and Prospects; RIRDC Publication No. 07/071; RuralIndustries Research and Development Corporation: Barton, ACT, Australia,2007.

(33) Mailer, R. Canola Meal: Limitations and Opportunities; AustralianOilseeds Federation: New South Wales, Australia, 2004.

(34) Clarke, S. RETsEnergy White PapersSubmission. Flinders Uni-versity: Adelaide, Australia, 2009.

(35) Pimentel, D.; Harvey, C.; Resosudarmo, P.; Sinclair, K.; Kurz, D.;McNair, M.; Crist, S.; Shpritz, L.; Fitton, L.; Saffouri, R.; Blair, R.Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil Erotion and ConservationBenefits. Science 1995, 267, 1117–1123.

ReceiVed for reView June 19, 2010ReVised manuscript receiVed September 9, 2010

Accepted September 10, 2010

IE1013162


Documents

Biodiesel Production From Canola in Western Australia