Life Cycle Environmental Performance of B100 Biodiesel from Reutealis Trisperma (Kemiri Sunan): An Integrated Carbon Payback Period and Nature-Based Solutions Assessment

Authors

  • Kiki Hakiki Universitas Indonesia
  • Dedi Priadi Universitas Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59261/jbt.v7i3.688

Keywords:

B100 biodiesel, Carbon Payback Period, Kemiri Sunan, Life Cycle Assessment, Reutealis Trisperma

Abstract

Background: Rising greenhouse gas emissions have increased the need for sustainable biofuels. Biodiesel from the non-edible feedstock Reutealis trisperma (kemiri sunan) offers a low-carbon alternative compatible with marginal lands under the Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) framework.

Objective: This study evaluates the environmental performance of B100 biodiesel production from kemiri sunan and quantifies the effects of renewable energy integration on emission reduction, energy efficiency, and carbon payback.

Methods: A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) using a cradle-to-gate system boundary (functional unit: 1 liter of B100 biodiesel) was conducted using OpenLCA with the Ecoinvent 3.11 database, ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H), IPCC 2013, and Cumulative Energy Demand methods. The assessment covered the entire production chain from cultivation to bio-additive blending.

Results: The carbon emissions of kemiri sunan B100 biodiesel were 2.04 kg CO₂-eq per liter, which were significantly lower than those of fossil diesel (3,400 kg CO₂-eq/ton) and comparable to palm oil biodiesel (1,659 kg CO₂-eq/ton). Transitioning to solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity reduced emissions by 56% (from 2.02 to 0.74 kg CO₂-eq). Energy balance indicators, including Net Energy Gain (NEG), Net Energy Ratio (NER), and Specific Energy Consumption (SEC), confirmed a positive energy output-to-input ratio. The Carbon Payback Period (CPP) was estimated at 11 years when using PLN electricity and was shortened to 6 years with solar PV integration.

Conclusion: Kemiri sunan B100 biodiesel demonstrates strong potential as a sustainable, non-edible bioenergy source that supports low-carbon energy transitions. The integration of renewable energy, optimized cultivation management, and the utilization of degraded lands collectively enhance its environmental performance and strengthen the effectiveness of NbS implementation.

References

Azadi, H., Barati, A. A., Nazari Nooghabi, S., & Scheffran, J. (2022). Climate-related disasters and agricultural land conversion: Towards prevention policies. Climate and Development, 14(9), 814–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.2008291

Chun, Y., Kim, I., & Jeon, E.-C. (2026). Evaluating the Carbon Payback Period of Nature-Based Solutions: A Life Cycle Assessment Approach. Nature-Based Solutions, 100310. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NBSJ.2026.100310

Cook-Patton, S. C., Leavitt, S. M., Gibbs, D., Harris, N. L., Lister, K., Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Briggs, R. D., Chazdon, R. L., Crowther, T. W., & Ellis, P. W. (2020). Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature, 585(7826), 545–550. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x

Gielen, D., Boshell, F., Saygin, D., Bazilian, M. D., Wagner, N., & Gorini, R. (2019). The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strategy Reviews, 24, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.01.006

Global Temperature - Earth Indicator - NASA Science. (2021). Retrieved November 12, 2025, from https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/global-temperature/

GSR 2025 | RENEWABLE ENERGY IN TRANSPORT. (2025). Retrieved November 12, 2025, from https://www.ren21.net/gsr-2025/sectors/transport/

Haase, M., Wulf, C., Baumann, M., Rösch, C., Weil, M., Zapp, P., & Naegler, T. (2022). Prospective assessment of energy technologies: a comprehensive approach for sustainability assessment. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 12(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-022-00344-6

Hajian, M., & Kashani, S. J. (2021). Evolution of the concept of sustainability. From Brundtland Report to sustainable development goals. In Sustainable resource management (pp. 1–24). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824342-8.00018-3

Herman, M., Hafif, B., Ferry, Y., Aunillah, A., Firdaus, N. K., Listyati, D., & Pranowo, D. (2023). The prospect of kemiri sunan (Reutalis trisperma B. airy shaw) development as a source of bio-oil from inedible crops. E3S Web of Conferences, 373, 4017. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202337304017

Hernández-Morcillo, M., Burgess, P., Mirck, J., Pantera, A., & Plieninger, T. (2018). Scanning agroforestry-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Europe. Environmental Science & Policy, 80, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.013

Huijbregts, M. A. J., Steinmann, Z. J. N., Elshout, P. M. F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M., Zijp, M., Hollander, A., & Van Zelm, R. (2017). ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(2), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y

Jo, H.-K., & Park, H.-M. (2017). Changes in growth rate and carbon sequestration by age of landscape trees. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 45(5), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2017.45.5.097

Kao, Y.-L., & Chen, J.-Y. (2025). Exploring the Purchase Intention of Electric Vehicles Through the UTAUT 2 Model. 2025 1st International Conference on Consumer Technology (ICCT-Pacific), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCT-PACIFIC63901.2025.11012759

Lovasz, A., Sabau, N. C., Borza, I., & Brejea, R. (2023). Production and quality of biodiesel under the influence of a rapeseed fertilization system. Energies, 16(9), 3728. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16093728

Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvine, K. N., Rusch, G. M., Waylen, K. A., Delbaere, B., Haase, D., Jones-Walters, L., Keune, H., & Kovacs, E. (2017). The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Science of the Total Environment, 579, 1215–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106

Sala, S., Laurent, A., Vieira, M., & Van Hoof, G. (2020). Implications of LCA and LCIA choices on interpretation of results and on decision support. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(12), 2311–2314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01845-2

Siregar, K., Tambunan, A. H., Irwanto, A. K., Wirawan, S. S., & Araki, T. (2015). A comparison of life cycle assessment on oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) and physic nut (Jatropha curcas Linn.) as feedstock for biodiesel production in Indonesia. Energy Procedia, 65, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.01.054

Sucahyo, L., Ardelia, L. P., Purwanti, N., & Virgian, S. (2025). Energy Balance Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Biodiesel Production from Philippine Tung (Reutealis trisperma) Oil in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1513(1), 12019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1513/1/012019

Tibesigwa, T., Iezzi, B., Lim, T. H., Kirabira, J. B., & Olupot, P. W. (2023). Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from selected second-generation feedstocks. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 13, 100614. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLET.2023.100614

Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., & Weidema, B. (2016). The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8

Downloads

Published

2026-07-21