DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL

SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS

Udin Hasanudin

Laboratory of Agro-industrial Waste Management, Faculty of Agriculture,

University of Lampung, Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro No. 1, Bandar Lampung-35145,

INDONESIA Email: udinha65@gmail.com

The 3rd “Bioenergy Week”

Indonesia, Medan 25-29 May 2015

ERIA WG on “Sustainability Assessment of Biomass Utilisation in East Asia”

Economic Performance

Triple Bottom Lines for Sustainable Development

Social Performance

GHG Emission

Reduction

(Global & Regional

Environment…)

by LCA

Domestic/Regional Gap

Abatement

Food vs. Energy (Culture,

Education, Poverty, Health, Peace,

Human Rights ..)

by HDI or similar index

Economic

Sustainability,

Energy Security

(Economic

Development)

by Gross Value

Added

2

WG Concept on Sustainability

Environmental Performance

3

List of WG Member

Masayuki SAGISAKA: ERIA Working Group Leader, National Institute of Advanced

Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan

Yuki KUDOH: ERIA Working Group Acting Leader, National Institute of Advanced Industrial

Science and Technology (AIST), Japan

Sau Soon CHEN: Environment & Bioprocess Technology Centre, SIRIM Berhad, Malaysia

Jessie C. ELAURIA: Institute of Agricultural Engineering, College of Engineering and Agro-

Industrial Technology, University of the Philippines Los Baños, the Philippines

Shabbir H. GHEEWALA: The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE),

King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand

Udin HASANUDIN: Department of Agroindustrial Technology, University of Lampung,

Indonesia

Jane ROMERO: Transport and Climate Finance Specialist (Consultant), Asian Development

Bank

Yucho SADAMICHI: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology

(AIST), Japan

Vinod K. SHARMA: Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR), India

Xunpeng SHI: Energy Studies Institute, National University of Singapore

RENEWABLE ENERGY INNITIATIVES Case Study: Ethanol from Cassava

5

Sustainability Assessment Methodology

(ERIA Project Report No.8-2)

• Environmental Impact

- Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• Economic Impact

- Total Value Added

• Social Impact

- HDI (Human Development Index)

6

What the Environmental Impact ?

LC GHG emission was used to

evaluate the environmental impact

of bioethanol production from

cassava

7

Boundary system

8

Ethanol Factory

Contract Farmers

Non-Contract Farmers

CO2

Thin slop

Wet cake, Cassava peels,

Soil

Bioethanol

Composting

Markets(Chemicals industries, biofuel etc)

Biogas plant

CO2

CO2

CO2

Power Generator

Coals

CO2

Schematic diagram of ethanol production

9

Pre

TreatmentFeed Stock Liquefaction

Distillation

WWTP

Decantation

Slurry MashSaccharification

&

Fermentation

Product

Thin

Slops

Wet Cake

Treated

Effluent

Cassava

Biogas to

Boiler

Molasses

PW Steam PW

Steam

Material balance on cassava-based ethanol

production (based on a ha of plantation)

10

1.37 Ton

Coal

CO2 emission from ethanol production

11 *) every ha produces 4.394 KL ethanol **) neutral

***) Low Heating Value of Ethanol = 21.1 MJ/L

www.bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html)

Process Source Unit* Quantity CO2e Emission

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

Plantation Diesel fuel L/ha 13.7 0.0097 0.4596

Urea Kg/ha 192 0.0406 1.9241

NPK (15-15-15) Kg/ha 185.5 0.0173 0.8220

Herbicides Kg/ha 1.747 0.0069 0.3249

Transportation Diesel fuel L/ton 0.41

L/KL ethanol 2.658 0.0082 0.3920

Processing

Electricity

(Coal) MW 5.7

MWh/KL ethanol 0.760 0.7858 37.2436

CO2 M3/day 0** 0

Waste treatment CH4, flared M3/day 0** 0

CO2 M3/day 0** 0

CH4, vented M3/day 18957.9 1.5798 74.8732

CH4, utilized M3/day 18957.9 -0.3379 -16.0121

TOTAL CO2 EMISSION (SCENARIO 1, FLARED) 0.8686 41.1663

TOTAL CO2 EMISSION (SCENARIO 2, VENTED) 2.4484 116.0395

TOTAL CO2 EMISSION (SCENARIO 3, UTILIZED) 0.5308 25.1542

GHG Emission from Ethanol Production

compare to Gasoline (kg CO2e/GJ)

12

25.15

41.17

116.04

84.80

0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 150.00

Utilized

Flared

Vented

GHGgasoline

Utilized

Flared

Vented

GHGgasoline

(kg CO2e/GJ)

GHG Emission from Ethanol Production

compare to Gasoline (%)

13

30

49

137

100

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Utilized

Flared

Vented

GHGgasoline Utilized

Flared

Vented

GHGgasoline

( % )

What the Economic Impact ?

TVA was used to evaluate the

economic impact of bioethanol

production from cassava

14

Costs and returns in cassava production for partnership farmers

15

ITEMS QUANTITY/

HA

COST/UNIT

(in IDR)

COST/HA

(in IDR)

MATERIAL

Seed, Fertilizer,

compost, and

Chemicals

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

LABOR

Weeding, Fertilizing,

and Other

Maintenance

28.05 days 25,000 701,328

MACHINE Land preparation 1 package 294,498 294,498

Harvesting and

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

OVERHEAD Tax, and rent,

refraction 2,135,280

TOTAL COST 6,300,394

TOTAL fresh cassava root 28,490kg 439.25 12,536,138

NET PROFIT 6,235,744

Costs and returns in cassava production for non-partnership farmers

16

ITEMS QUANTITY/

HA

COST/UNIT

(in IDR)

COST/HA

(in IDR)

MATERIAL

Seed, Fertilizer,

compost, and

Chemicals

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

LABOR

Weeding, Fertilizing,

and Other

Maintenance

37.31 days 25,000 832,811

MACHINE Land preparation 1 package 478,172 478,172

Harvesting and

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

OVERHEAD Tax, and rent,

refraction 1,823,862

TOTAL COST 6,110,277

TOTAL fresh cassava root 24,670 kg 449.75 11,106,193

NET PROFIT 4,995,916

17

Cassava = 6.48 kg

2846-2914 IDR

Ethanol Price

5336 IDR /L

950-1108

1382-1472 IDR /L

Raw Material Cost Processing Cost

Value Added

Value added resulted from processing cassava tubers

into ethanol on a liter ethanol basis

Costs and returns in production of ethanol from one hectare

cassava production

18

ITEMS QUANTITY COST/UNIT

(IDR)

TOTAL

(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 2,990,400

Compost 1.37 T 700,000 959,000

ADDITIONAL PROFIT 3,949,400

TOTAL PROFIT 8,884,330

What the Social Impact ?

HDI was used to evaluate the

Social impact of bioethanol

production from cassava

19

Social parameters on cassava production

in North Lampung

20

Item Quantity

Number 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

Number of university student 0

21

Life Expectation Index = 2585

2589.61

= 0.6148

Number 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) = 0100

0

ALR =

0100

05.97

= 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()40000log(

)100log()log(

pcGDP=

)100log()40000log(

)100log()8.635log(

= 0.309

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

Is it Sustainable ?

Integration of environmental.

Economic, and Social Indicator ??

22

Sustainability indicators of cassava

production and utilization for ethanol 23

Current Conditions

• Cassava tubers price increased to

IDR.1000-1300/kg

• Ethanol factory changed cassava to

molases as feed stock

• Ethanol production from cassava was

terminated

24

Highlight of Pilot Project

Sustainability Assessment Methodology

(ERIA Project Report No.8-2)

• Indicators like GHG savings, TVA, and HDI change,

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

25

Improvement of Methodology

26

• Environmental indicator chosen for this phase of the

project cover only GHG savings which is very relevant to

current concerns on biofuels. Evaluation of GHG

emissions for global warming using LCA is appropriate

but other emission and impacts can also be considered,

such as: land use change, soil quality, eutrophication,

ecotoxicity, human toxicity, and resource depletion affect.

• Other Economic indicators are also considered, such as

NP, TVA, and Forex saving.

• Although 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

represent social impact at the community level.

27

Sustainability Indicators at Different Level

Latest Methodology Improvement

28

• In environmental aspects, one of important

environmental sustainability elements, namely,

soil sustainability, was introduced and possibility

of its quantification was explored using microbial

quinone profiles method.

• In economic aspects, the production and income

approaches were discussed because different

approaches could apply to different scale of

biomass projects.

• In social aspects, “Employment” and “Access to

Modern Bioenergy,” were considered.

RENEWABLE ENERGY INNITIATIVES Case Study: Palm Biomass Power Plant, Bangka Island

Project Location: Bangka-Belitung Province

• Number of household in Bangka-Belitung province is 324,600 households. Electrification ratio of Bangka-Belitung is 73.94% which mean 26.6% or 86,344 households are still not electrified.

• Recently the total installed capacity is 89.46 MW with rated power (available power) of 51.34 MW and peak load 129.48 MW (PLN, 2013).

• Fuel consumption for electricity production by HSD in Bangka-Belitung is 193,281.40 kL, so that the estimated fuel consumption per household is 179,393.7 kL. Cost of fuel (HSD) is IDR 9,046.09/Liter, so that the cost of fuel totally in Bangka-Belitung is IDR 1.75 Trillion (PLN, 2012).

• Babel Province, there is no oil or coal as fossil energy sources. it’s necessary to use energy from renewable sources that come from the surrounding area.

Electricity Condition in Bangka-Belitung Province

Solid Waste

Solid

Decanter

(3.5%

optional)

EFB Fiber Shell Boiler Ash

POME

Waste generated from Palm Oil Mill

20-23 % 12-13 % 5-6 % 0.5-0.6 % 77-84 %

Steam electricity

Boiler

FFB

Biomass utilization in palm oil mill

Fiber

Kernel shell

EFB

Boiler ash

ENERGY SOURCES IN PALM OIL MILL

Steam

0.075 kL /hr

9.4 ton/hr

Electricity

FFB

WATER

FUEL

PALM OIL MILL

40 ton/hr

60 ton/hr

720 kWh/hr

Crude Palm oil

EFB

Kernel

Fiber

Shell

POME

1.7 ton/hr

4.8 ton/hr

2.8 ton/hr

33.7 ton/hr

5.6 ton/hr

85-100%

50-55%

24 ton/hr

Diesel oil

8,7 ton/hr

Palm Biomass Power Plant

Purpose and General Description of Project Activity

• The project was intended to provide a new supply of electricity by using local fuel from the palm oil industries in the island.

• The project contributes to Indonesia’s sustainable development by providing green electricity in isolated areas such as Bangka and therefore promoting the growth of the local economy by improving access to electricity.

• The electricity was utilized for palm oil mill and the excess electricity was sold to PT. PLN.

• Feed stock composition:

Fiber= 20%; Palm Shell= 20%; EFB= 60%

• Feed stock supply from their own mill

(PT. Sawindo Kencana) only contribute up to 20%. The other 80% should be import from other palm oil mill.

Several problems related to un-successful the palm biomass-based power plant

• The availability of feedstock for boilers (80% from Kalimantan) – NOT LOCAL AVAILABLE.

• The price of feedstock (PKS and EFB) rising continuously (more than IDR 400/kg). Based on this price, FIT is not attractive – GOVERNMENT CONCERN

• Inconsistent quality of feedstock – TECH CONCERN • Feedstock preparation consumes high parasitic (own use) power. • Higher maintenance compared to coal power plant. • Lack of understanding by local authority for PPA process and

other required licenses – GOVERNMENT CONCERN • This system removed the opportunity of oil palm plantation to

have mulch or compost from EFB – COMPETITION WITH OTHER PUSPOSES

RENEWABLE ENERGY INNITIATIVES Case Study: Self Suficience Energy Village Based on Biogas

Location:

Haurngombong Village, Sub distric Pamulihan, Sumedang, West Jawa

UTILIZATION OF COW MANURE

FOR BIOGAS ENERGY

Village: Haurngombong

Sub. District: Pamulihan

District: Sumedang

Bandung

DKI Jakarta

Sumedang

karangnangka

cipareuag

rancamekar

cikondang

warung

kawat

simpang

cirengganis

cigembong

sekepaku

lapang

pangaseran

Overview:

Sub District

Village

District

Province

Area

Population

Elevation

Av. Temperature

Distant from

Bandung

: Pamulihan

: Haurngombong

: Sumedang

: West Jawa

: 219 Ha

: 4,865

: 750-850 ASL

: 22 oC

: 31 km

The Potential of Village

1. Center of milk production and

other agricutural products (Sweet

Potato, Fresh Fish, etc.)

2. Center of organic compost

production

Haurngombong Village

2003: BIOGAS was introduced to solved sanitation problem and organic fertilizer production

2007: KEROSENE price increase and difficult to found it

Village leader promoted biogas as source of alternative energy

2008: BIOGAS was socialized to the communities

• Collaboration with Pajajaran University, Bandung and PLN (PLN supply small biogas generator)

Local Government Supports: Socialization program

Biogas Training development

Networking on biogas information and technology

Establishment of local biogas working groups

Manure Inlet Biogas Reactor

Gas Holder Safety

valve

Stove Electricity Grass Cutting machine

Feed

Cow

Grass

Current Situation:

• The populations of cow in Haurngombong village are about 1300 and all of their manure was utilized for generate biogas in about 300 digester

• Biogas was utilized for cooking energy (more than 700 HH) for free

• Utilization for electricity and fuel of grass cutting machine was not working well due to corrosion.

• Haurngombong village prodused about 1,950 m3 of biogas per day which is equivalent with 897 kg of LPG or 1,209 litre of kerosene, or 6,825 kg of fire wood per day.

• The utilization of biogas for cooking reduced GHGs emission about 835.7 kg of methane or about 17,550 kg CO2e per day.

Biogas digester installed in Haurngombong village

Biogas Utilization

• Cooking energy

• Parteurization of milk

• Electricity generation

Lessons learned from Self Suficience Energy Village Based on Biogas

• Haurngombong village is one of the Self Sufficiency Energy villages that successfully to utilize cow manure for renewable energy and solve sanitation problems in dairy cow farm village.

• Biogas project in Haurngombong village was successfully to educate people in the community level to contribute on renewable energy development and provide access on clean and cheap energy.

• The biogas project was also successfully to provide additional economic activities in the village, such as: compost and liquid fertilizer production, and some of the citizen can works also as biogas technician in the village so that it becomes a new source of livelihood for many villagers.

• The commitment of village leader give important contribution to make this program successfully.

Summary

• Renewable Energy should be develop based on local potential and problems/need in their community.

• Participation and supports of steakholders (community, government, university, and private company) are very important to secure the sustainability of the project.

Thank you for your kind attention