Biodiesel production from canola in western australia

Biodiesel Production from Canola in Western Australia: Energy and Carbon
Footprints and Land, Water, and Labour Requirements
Ferry Rustandi and Hongwei Wu*
Curtin Centre for AdVanced Energy Science and Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Curtin
UniVersity of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth WA 6845, Australia
This study evaluates the energy and carbon footprints and land, water, and labor requirements of biodiesel
production from canola in Western Australia (WA). The results show that canola-based biodiesel leads to
limited 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/L
of 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 of
total diesel consumption in WA’s transport sector to avoid significant competition with food production for
arable land. When some of the biodiesel is invested back into the production process to make the process
independent of nonrenewable fuels, the competition for arable land use is even more severe, rendering it
unfeasible to replace diesel fuel by the net biodiesel. Also, there would not be enough net biodiesel to support
the transport activities that are usually supported by diesel fuel in the WA transport sector, and no CO2-e
emissions savings would be achieved from replacing diesel fuel by net biodiesel. Overall, canola-based biodiesel
is not sustainable to replace a significant fraction of diesel consumption in the WA transport sector. It can
only play a limited role by offering some energy and CO2-e emissions savings and by providing immediate
opportunities for introducing new transport fuels in the marketplace and developing familiarity among the
consumers in our transition to a future sustainable biofuel supply.
1. Introduction
Renewable energy is recognized to be an important part of
any strategy to address energy security concerns and the
environmental issues related to fossil fuel use.1
Australia faces
particular challenges in these aspects because of its large area,
small but widely dispersed population, and heavy reliance on
energy-intensive industries including mining and agriculture.2
These factors lead to Australia being a country with per-capita
energy consumption among the highest in the world.1
In
particular, the transport sector is one of the most energy-
intensive sectors in Australia.3
Liquid fuels produced from
proven Australian oil reserves have been estimated to last for
approximately another 20 years.4
Therefore, developing a
renewable alternative transport fuel is a priority for future energy
security 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 energy
than the alternative fuel energy output. Additionally, the biofuel
production process should not be constrained by the availability
of land and water resources. It has also been pointed out in the
literature5-7
that a truly sustainable biofuel production process
should have labor productivity that is compatible with the labor
productivity in the diesel fuel supply to the transport sector.
Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of all of these aspects must
be carried to assess the true sustainability of any biofuels. Such
analysis is also critical to the setting of credible government
policy for fostering the development of a future sustainable
biofuel industry.
In Western Australia (WA), there has been an increasing
interest in replacing diesel fuel with biodiesel produced from
canola (rapeseed, Brassica napus species).8,9
Because of the
inevitable consumption of nonrenewable fuels and the associated
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during canola production and
its conversion to biodiesel, canola-based biodiesel might not
be renewable and sustainable. In the literature, a number of
previous studies10-21
investigated the energy and carbon balance
for producing biodiesel from canola. However, those studies
mainly 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 biodiesel
production 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 balance
analysis. Little has been done on the requirements of land, water,
and labor, which are also critical factors in determining the
overall sustainability of canola-based biodiesel.
Therefore, it was the objective of this work to carry out a
systematic study on the energy and carbon footprints, as well
as land, water, and labor requirements, of biodiesel production
from canola in WA. This study considers typical WA canola
growing practices and commercial processing parameters. The
key is to assess the overall sustainability of producing biodiesel
from canola in WA and evaluate the potential role that canola-
based biodiesel can play as an alternative transport fuel in
replacing diesel fuel in WA.
2. Methodology
2.1. Process Chain of Biodiesel Production from Canola
in WA. This study considers a typical process chain of biodiesel
production 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 most
of 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: h.wu@
curtin.edu.au. Tel.: +61-8-92667592. Fax: +61-8-92662681.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 11785–11796 11785
10.1021/ie1013162  2010 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 09/28/2010

in this region were obtained from field practice and are shown
in Table S1 in the Supporting Information. Straw (i.e., parts of
the canola plant other than the oilseeds) is produced as a
byproduct during harvest at the end of a growing season.
Harvested canola is transported to an oil extraction plant located
in Pinjarra in WA,23
where canola oil is mechanically and
chemically extracted in an expeller press and a solvent extractor,
respectively,24
leaving canola meal as a byproduct. Typical
process parameters for extracting fuel-grade canola oil in a
commercial oil extraction plant are listed in Table S2 in the
Supporting Information. Canola oil is then converted into
biodiesel through a transesterification reaction, where the oil is
reacted with an alcohol (usually methanol) with the aid of a
catalyst (usually KOH or NaOH),25
in a transesterification plant
located in Picton, WA.26
Glycerol is produced as a byproduct.
Typical process parameters for a commercial transesterification
plant are listed in Table S3 in the Supporting Information. This
study also considers the transport of canola, canola oil, and
byproducts, as well as biodiesel transport/distribution, with
locations of canola growing area, processing plants, and transport
distances shown in Figures 2 and 3 and transport details included
in Table S4 in the Supporting Information.
2.2. Energy and Carbon Footprints and Land, Water,
and Labor Requirements. The energy footprint (i.e., the total
nonrenewable primary energy input per liter of biodiesel
produced) was evaluated by accounting for all activities and
processes in the process chain (Tables S1-S4 in the Supporting
Information), involving all direct and indirect energy inputs.
The primary energy associated with each energy input item was
calculated using its specific energy density, defined as the total
accumulated nonrenewable primary energy in a unit quantity
of an item;27
the results are listed in Tables S5-S7 in the
Supporting Information. Utilization of byproduct gives energy
credits that can be substituted for some of the total primary
energy input. These energy credits were evaluated according
to byproduct utilization scenario, based on similar studies in
other countries, and are shown in Table S8 in the Supporting
Information. This study also considers two energy indicators.
One is overall energy ratio (R), defined as the ratio of biodiesel
energy output to the total nonrenewable primary energy input
of the production process. A production process with an R value
of less than 1 is not energetically feasible, as it consumes more
nonrenewable primary energy than the biodiesel energy pro-
duced. The other indicator is energy productivity (E),27
defined
as biodiesel energy output from growing and processing one
hectare (1 ha) of canola in a growing season. Whereas R must
simply be greater than 1, E needs to be as high as possible for
practical reasons.
The estimation of carbon footprint is based on the total GHG
emissions 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 their
CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) emissions. The CO2-e emissions were
calculated by multiplying the actual or estimated mass of
emissions of the GHGs28
associated with direct and indirect
nonrenewable primary energy inputs during biodiesel production
by their 100-year global-warming potentials.29
The CO2-e
emissions associated with various energy input items are shown
in Tables S9-S11 in the Supporting Information. Apart from
these emissions, the CO2-e emissions from managed cropland
were also evaluated according to the IPCC Guidelines.30
Both
direct and indirect emissions due to fertilizer application, crop
residues, and loss of soil organic carbon (reduced organic matter
levels in the soil because of land management for cropping,
which contributes to CO2-e emissions31
) were evaluated using
the Guideline’s Tier 1 method. When byproducts were utilized,
CO2-e emission credits were substituted for the total emissions
and were calculated using the same method according to the
amount of primary energy input substituted by byproduct
utilization. The CO2-e emissions savings obtained from replacing
diesel fuel with canola-based biodiesel was calculated by
comparing the carbon footprint to the CO2-e emissions from
production and use in medium heavy-duty trucks of conventional
diesel28
on the basis of equivalent energy content. On this basis,
1 L of canola-based biodiesel (32.86 MJ/L) replaces ∼0.92 L
of conventional diesel (35.79 MJ/L).
The land, water, and labor requirements per liter of biodiesel
produced were evaluated by accounting for the land, water, and
labor directly required in the activities and processes involved
in supplying biodiesel (Tables S1-S4 in the Supporting
Information). These requirements were then multiplied by the
number of liters of biodiesel required to replace a target
percentage of total diesel consumption in the WA transport
sector in a typical year to obtain the total land, water, and labor
requirements. The total requirements were then compared to
the actual land and water availability and labor productivity in
supplying diesel fuel to the transport sector in WA in a typical
year (Table S12 in the Supporting Information).
2.3. Net Energy Approach. The net energy approach (Figure
3), suggested in previous studies,5-7
was also used in this study
to re-evaluate the land, water, and labor requirements of
biodiesel production from canola in WA. In this approach, only
part of the biodiesel produced (i.e., the net biodiesel output F*
in Figure 3) is available as replacement for diesel fuel. The rest
of the biodiesel is invested back into the production process,
creating an internal loop of energy requirement, so as to make
the process not dependent on, and hence not limited by, the
availability of nonrenewable fuels. The number of liters of
biodiesel that must be produced to provide 1 L of net biodiesel
depends on the ratio of net-to-gross biodiesel output (F*/F1)
which, in turn, depends on R. Not only must R be greater than
1, but it must also be sufficiently high to obtain an F*/F1 ratio
that is large enough to prevent excessive amplification of
biodiesel production and the associated land, water, and labor
requirements per liter of net biodiesel so that the production
process is not constrained by the land and water availability
and by labor productivity in supplying diesel fuel to the WA
transport 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 to
provide net biodiesel to replace a target percentage of total diesel
consumption in the WA transport sector in a typical year. These
requirements are then compared to the actual land and water
availability and labor productivity in supplying diesel fuel to
the WA transport sector in a typical year.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Energy Footprint. The energy footprints, overall energy
ratios, and energy productivity of biodiesel production from
canola in WA are reported in Table 1. The energy requirements
for each stage of the production process are shown in Figure 4
without byproduct utilization to identify which energy input
items 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 Biodiesel
Production 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 input
associated with fertilizer use constituting the single largest
energy input of the whole production process. Diesel fuel
consumption during field machinery operations and energy input
associated with agricultural machineries also constitute a
significant proportion of the energy footprint. In the processing
stage, energy inputs associated with the consumption of process
chemicals during transesterification and with process heat
requirements during oil extraction contribute the most to the
energy footprint.
The energy footprint without byproduct utilization is higher
than 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 value
of 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 on
the amount of byproduct that can actually be utilized. Failure
to utilize canola meal and glycerol would decrease the energy
profit, and the excess byproducts would likely be regarded as
waste, whose disposal would incur energy costs that increase
the energy footprint and decrease the energy profit.
It is known that, for an alternative liquid transport fuel to
make a realistic contribution to future energy security, a scale
of production that can contribute 10-20% or more of the total
liquid transport fuel consumption would be necessary.32
To
replace 10-20% of the total diesel fuel consumption in the WA
transport sector in a typical year, 4.88-9.76 PJ of biodiesel
would have to be produced from canola annually.3
At this scale,
the canola oil extraction process would generate approximately
0.19-0.38 million tonnes of canola meal annually. This amount
of 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 from
all oilseed crops in a typical year.33
Similarly, 13.5-27 million
kg of glycerol would be generated by the transesterification
process, and it has been reported34
that, although some major
Australian biodiesel producers utilize glycerol, most manufac-
turers simply burn the byproduct. It is also known that only
limited amounts of straw can be utilized,7,35
as the harvesting
of residues from agricultural land facilitates soil erosion, which
leads to further energy costs associated with replacement of
increased runoff water and of essential soil nutrients that are
lost as a result of erosion. Consequently, only approximately
10% of the total straw produced is considered for utilization in
this study (Table S8 in the Supporting Information). Therefore,
the contribution of canola-based biodiesel to future energy
security in the WA transport sector is limited and strongly
dependent on the utilization of byproducts. The canola-based
biodiesel production process consumes substantial nonrenewable
fuels and leads to only limited energy profit.
3.2. Carbon Footprint. The carbon footprint of biodiesel
production from canola in WA and the CO2-e emissions savings
obtained from replacing diesel fuel with canola-based biodiesel
are reported in Table 2. The CO2-e emissions from each stage
of the production process are shown in Figure 5 without
byproduct utilization to identify the major contributors of CO2-e
emissions. In addition to being the most energy-intensive stage,
canola growing also dominates the overall CO2-e emissions with
the CO2-e emissions from managed cropland constituting the
single largest CO2-e emissions contribution from the whole
production process. The CO2-e emissions associated with
production of fertilizers are another major contributor, followed
by moderate contributions from CO2-e emissions associated with
production of pesticides, diesel fuel consumption (mainly during
field 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 canola
meal is utilized (with or without glycerol), there is no or only
marginal CO2-e emissions savings. This suggests that canola-
based biodiesel in fact leads to little reduction in GHG emissions
when it is used to substitute mineral diesel in the WA transport
sector. Only when at least both straw and canola meal are
utilized, the carbon footprint of canola-based biodiesel can
provide some opportunity to reduce CO2-e emissions from the
production and use of conventional diesel on an equivalent-
energy-content basis. The highest CO2-e emissions savings is
0.52 kg of CO2-e/L of biodiesel when all of the byproducts,
including straw, canola meal, and glycerol, are utilized, as
indicated in Table S8 in the Supporting Information. However,
as discussed in the previous section, because of the large
biodiesel production scale that is required and the soil erosion
facilitated by harvesting residues from agricultural areas, it will
be difficult to achieve a high percentage utilization of the
byproducts from the canola-based biodiesel production process
in WA. Therefore, the role of canola-based biodiesel in reducing
GHG emissions from the WA transport sector is also limited
and strongly dependent on the utilization of byproducts.
3.3. Land, Water, and Labor Requirements. The land,
water, and labor requirements per liter of biodiesel produced
from canola in WA were assessed, and the results are presented
in Table 3. The land, water, and labor requirements of canola-
biodiesel production as a function of the target percentage of
total mineral diesel fuel consumption in the WA transport sector
in a typical year were calculated, and the results are listed in
Table 4. The results are also compared to the actual land and
water availability and labor productivity in supplying diesel fuel
to the transport sector in WA in a typical year (Table S12 in
the Supporting Information).
The results in Table 4 clearly suggest that canola-based
biodiesel can only play a minor role in the future energy security
and GHG emissions reduction in the WA transport sector. For
example, to replace 10% of the total diesel fuel consumption
in the WA transport sector in a typical year, approximately 60%
of the cropland area used for growing oilseeds (for food
production) in WA in a typical year must be dedicated to canola
growing for biodiesel production. Therefore, most of annual
canola harvest would be used for biodiesel production, and more
arable land would need to be provided for growing canola for
other purposes, such as production of edible oil, causing serious
competition with food production using arable land. In fact, even
a 2% replacement requires 12% of the current cropland area
for growing oilseeds (for food production) in WA in a typical
year to be dedicated to canola growing for biodiesel production.
Therefore, the land requirement is expected to be the major
constraint on the realization of canola-based biodiesel’s potential
as a sustainable transport fuel to replace diesel fuel in the WA
transport sector. The results in Table 4 indicate that, to minimize
its competition with food production, canola-based biodiesel
should only replace less than 2% of the total annual diesel fuel
consumption in WA.
Because of the rain-fed cropping system in growing canola
in WA,22
the water requirement of the production process mainly
derives from the canola processing stages (Tables S2 and S3 in
the Supporting Information). As a result, only a very small
fraction of the total water resource availability in WA in a typical
year, equivalent to less than 1% of the total water consumption
in the WA agricultural sector, is required to be dedicated to the
production process. Therefore, the water requirement seems to
be insignificant, although it might become a constraining factor
during periods of drought. This is because the amount of total
annual water resource strongly depends on the amount of rainfall
and the variability of Australian rainfall from year to year and
season to season.2
In terms of labor requirement, 9.15 × 10-3
h of labor is
required per liter of canola-based biodiesel (Table 3). This is
the total number of direct labor hours required in producing
biodiesel, which includes the labor hours during canola growing,
oil extraction, transesterification, and transport activities (Tables
S1-S4 in the Supporting Information). This labor requirement
is compared to 1.52 × 10-2
h of direct labor required per liter
of diesel fuel supplied to the WA transport sector (Table S12
in the Supporting Information), which includes the labor hours
during oil mining/extraction, refinery, and diesel distribution.
Within the limited fraction of diesel fuel that might replaced
by biodiesel without causing significant competition for arable
land, the fact that fewer labor hour are required in producing
biodiesel than diesel (higher throughput for biodiesel than for
diesel fuel, as shown in Table 4) means that there would be
Table 2. Carbon Footprint of Biodiesel Production from Canola in
WA and CO2-e Emissions Savings Obtained by Replacing Diesel
Fuel 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 -0.74
with straw utilization 3.21 -0.22
with meal utilization 3.15 -0.16
with meal and glycerol utilization 2.98 0.0046
with straw and meal utilization 2.63 0.35
with utilization of straw,
meal, and glycerol
2.47 0.52

enough biodiesel to support transport activities that are usually
supported by diesel fuel in the WA transport sector.
3.4. Net Energy Analysis. The limited energy proﬁt obtained
in the biodiesel production process means that the contribution
of canola-based biodiesel to future energy security in the WA
transport sector is still constrained by the availability of
nonrenewable fuels to supply energy for the production process.
As already pointed out, the net energy approach is used to make
the process not dependent on nonrenewable fuels by investing
some of the produced biodiesel back into the process, leaving
only the net biodiesel available as replacement for diesel fuel,
as shown in Figure 3. The ratio of net-to-gross output of
biodiesel (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 Biodiesel
Production 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 (Tables
S1-S3 in the Supporting Information). b
Calculated from canola
processing water requirements (Tables S2 and S3 in the Supporting
Information), assuming 80% water supply efﬁciency.7 c
Calculated from
labor hour requirements during canola growing and processing and
during canola, canola oil, and biodiesel transport (Tables S1-S4 in the
Supporting Information).

overall energy ratio (utilization of straw, meal, and glycerol)
evaluated in this study (i.e., R6 ) 1.72, Table 1) is 0.42, which
means that, to deliver 1 net MJ of biodiesel, 2.38 MJ of biodiesel
must be produced. The land, water, and labor requirements to
deliver net canola-based biodiesel to replace diesel fuel con-
sumption in the WA transport sector in a typical year are
reported in Table 5 and are compared to the actual land and
water availability and labor productivity in supplying diesel fuel
to the transport sector in WA in a typical year (Table S12 in
the Supporting Information).
Table 5 shows that even a 1% replacement of the total diesel
fuel consumption by net biodiesel requires that over 14% of
the cropland area used for growing oilseeds in WA in a typical
year 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 from
replacing diesel fuel in the transport sector by net biodiesel.
Investing some of the produced biodiesel to make the production
process independent of nonrenewable fuels avoids CO2-e
emissions associated with their use in the process.7
Only CO2-e
emissions from managed cropland (Figure 5) are ampliﬁed
because of the net-to-gross ratio in producing net biodiesel.
However, Figure 5 indicates that CO2-e emissions from managed
cropland constitute the single largest emissions contribution from
the whole production process and ampliﬁcation by a factor of
2.38 because of the net-to-gross ratio yields CO2-e emissions
of 3.71 kg of CO2-e/net L of biodiesel, which is almost
equivalent 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 WA
Transport 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 1.49
land requirement
106
ha/yearb
0.02 0.05 0.25 0.49 1.23 2.47
as percentage of total cropland area in WAc
0.20 0.41 2.04 4.08 10.19 20.39
as percentage of total area sown for oilseeds in WAd
6.01 12.03 60.14 120.27 300.68 601.37
water requirement
GL/yeare
0.04 0.07 0.36 0.73 1.81 3.63
as percentage of total water resource in WAf
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01
as percentage of total water use in WAg
<0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.24
as 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 13.60
biodiesel throughput (GJ/h)j
3.59 3.59 3.59 3.59 3.59 3.59
diesel 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 (Table
3) by biodiesel production requirement. c
Comparison of land requirement (ha/year) to the total cropland area used 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 the land area used for oilseeds production in
WA 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 in
the Supporting Information). h
Comparison of water requirement (GL/year) to the water consumption in WA agricultural sector in a typical year (Table
S12 in the Supporting Information). i
Multiplication of labor requirement (Table 3) by biodiesel production requirement. j
Division of biodiesel
production requirement by labor requirement (h/year). k
This is the diesel energy throughput per hour of labor in supplying diesel fuel to the WA
transport 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 WA
Transport 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 3.54
land requirement
106
ha/yearb
0.06 0.12 0.59 1.18 2.94 5.88
as percentage of total cropland area in WAc
0.49 0.97 4.86 9.72 24.30 48.61
as percentage of total area sown for oilseeds in WAd
14.34 28.67 143.37 286.74 716.84 1433.68
water requirement
GL/yeare
0.09 0.17 0.86 1.73 4.32 8.65
as percentage of total water resource in WAf
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.02
as percentage of total water use in WAg
<0.01 0.01 0.06 0.12 0.29 0.58
as 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 32.42
net biodiesel throughput (net GJ/h)j
1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51
diesel 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 area
used 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 the
land area used for oilseeds production in WA 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 in the Supporting Information). h
Comparison of water requirement (GL/year) to the water consumption in
WA agricultural sector in a typical year (Table S12 in the Supporting Information). i
Multiplication of labor requirement (Table 3) by biodiesel
production requirement. j
Division of net biodiesel production by labor requirement (h/year). k
This is the diesel energy throughput per hour of labor in
supplying diesel fuel to the WA transport sector (Table S12 in the Supporting Information), to be compared to the net biodiesel throughput.

Table6.EnergyandCarbonFootprintsandLand,Water,andLaborRequirementsofBiodieselProductionfromCanola(Rapeseed)inWAandOtherRegions
country/regionland(10-3
ha/Lbiodiesel)
water
(Lwater/Lbiodiesel)
labor
(h/Lbiodesel)energy(MJ/Lbiodiesel)
carbon
(kgofCO2-e/Lbiodiesel)
notesonenergy
andcarbonfootprints
WA(thisstudy)1.662.440.0091533.92(R1)0.97)3.72(-0.74a
)withoutbyproductutilization
29.40(R2)1.12)3.21(-0.22a
)withstrawutilization
25.25(R3)1.30)3.15(-0.16a
)withmealutilization
23.60(R4)1.39)2.98(0.0046a
)withmealandglycerolutilization
20.73(R5)1.59)2.63(0.35a
)withstrawandmealutilization
19.07(R6)1.72)2.47(0.52a
)withstraw,meal,andglycerolutilization
E)19.79GJ/ha
Australia11
1.44(1.41a
)allocationofsomeCO2-eemissionfromcanola
growingandoilextractiontocanolaoilandmeal
accordingtoyieldsandmarketprices
Germany16
0.7712.47(R4)2.62)1.22(1.66a
)allocationofsomeenergyinputandCO2-eemission
tomealandglycerolaccordingtoyieldsandenergy
contents
E)42.53GJ/ha
Sweden,12
small-scaleproduction
1.2119.28(R1)1.76)2.97noallocationofenergyinputandCO2-eemissionto
byproduct
12.03(R4)2.82)1.73allocationofsomeenergyinputandCO2-eemission
tomealandglycerolaccordingtoyieldsandmarket
prices
contents
E)27.99GJ/ha
Sweden,12
medium-scaleproduction
byproduct
prices
contents
E)30.88GJ/ha
Sweden,12
large-scaleproduction
byproduct
prices
contents;carbonfootprintcorrespondstoaCO2-e
emissionssavingsof0.09kgofCO2-e/MJengine
E)40.34GJ/ha
Lithuania15
0.84-1.47(evaluatedfora
theoreticalrapeseedyield
rangeof2-3.5t/ha)b
R1)1.04-1.59evaluatedforatheoreticalrapeseedyieldrangeof
2-3.5t/ha;b
onlybiodieselenergycontent
considered
2-3.5t/ha;b
energycontentsofmealandglycerol
addedtothatofbiodiesel
2-3.5t/ha;b
energycontentsofstraw,meal,and
glyceroladdedtothatofbiodiesel

Table6.Continued
ha/Lbiodiesel)
water
(Lwater/Lbiodiesel)
labor
carbon
notesonenergy
andcarbonfootprints
E)22.62-39.58GJ/haevaluatedforatheoreticalrapeseedyieldrangeof
2-3.5t/hab
Belgium14
0.55c
E)52.31GJ/haevaluatedwithenvironmentalimpactcreditsassigned
tomealandglycerol
Belgium20
55%asameasureofcarbonfootprint,thegreenhouse
effectofthebiodiesellifecycleisonly55%thatof
dieselfuelonthebasisofequivalentnumberof
kilometerstraveledbyanidenticalcar;greenhouse
effectofbiodieselevaluatedwithanunspeciﬁed
methodofallocationtobyproducts
U.K.,13
biodieselproduction
fromwinterrapeseed
0.7424.18(R1)1.35)1.24(1.46a
)onlybiodieselenergycontentconsideredwhen
evaluatingR1;carbonfootprintandcorresponding
CO2-eemissionssavingsbasedonCO2emissions
andevaluatedwithoutCO2emissioncreditfrom
byproduct;nodataprovidedforotherGHGs
R2)2.50energycontentofstrawaddedtothatofbiodiesel
R3)2.55energycontentofmealaddedtothatofbiodiesel
R4)2.62energycontentsofmealandglyceroladdedtothatof
biodiesel
R6)3.77energycontentsofstraw,meal,andglyceroladdedto
thatofbiodiesel
1.11(1.58a
)basedonCO2emissionsandevaluatedwithCO2
emissioncreditfromutilizationofstrawforrapeseed
dryingandprocessing;nodataprovidedforother
GHGs
E)43.93GJ/ha
U.K.,13
biodieselproduction
fromspringrapeseed
1.0824.23(R1)1.35)onlybiodieselenergycontentconsideredwhen
evaluatingR1
R2)2.50energycontentofstrawaddedtothatofbiodiesel
R3)2.55energycontentofmealaddedtothatofbiodiesel
R4)2.61energycontentsofmealandglyceroladdedtothatof
biodiesel
R6)3.77energycontentsofstraw,meal,andglyceroladdedto
thatofbiodiesel
E)30.20GJ/ha
U.K.10
0.52-0.90(evaluatedfora
rangeofwinterrapeseed
growingconditionsand
processingparameters)
R1)0.67-2.23evaluatedforarangeofwinterrapeseedgrowing
conditionsandprocessingparameters;onlybiodiesel
energycontentconsidered
conditionsandprocessingparameters;energy
contentofmealaddedtothatofbiodiesel
contentsofmealandglyceroladdedtothatof
biodiesel
contentsofstraw,meal,andglyceroladdedtothat
ofbiodiesel
E)36.30-63.04MJ/haevaluatedforarangeofwinterrapeseedgrowing
conditionsandprocessingparameters
U.K.19
0.5817.78(R1)1.78)onlybiodieselenergycontentconsideredwhen
evaluatingR1

Table6.Continued
ha/Lbiodiesel)
water
(Lwater/Lbiodiesel)
labor
carbon
notesonenergy
andcarbonfootprints
17.78(R3)1.82)1.53mealutilizedasorganicfertilizeronfarmwithno
additionalenergyinput;energyvalueofmealbased
onitsreplacementvalue(energyrequiredtoproduce
thereplacedinorganicfertilizer)andaddedto
biodieselenergycontenttoevaluateR3;carbon
footprintbasedonCO2andN2Oemissions
18.16(R5)3.71)1.60mealutilizedasorganicfertilizeronfarmwithno
additionalenergyinput;strawburnedasfuel;energy
valueofmealbasedonitsreplacementvalue
(energyrequiredtoproducethereplacedinorganic
fertilizer)andadded,alongwithstrawenergy
content,tobiodieselenergycontenttoevaluateR3;
carbonfootprintbasedonCO2andN2Oemissions
E)54.35GJ/ha
U.K.17
0.5517.76(R4)1.85)1.76(1.09a
tomeal(soldasanimalfeed)andglycerol(soldfor
otheruses)accordingtotheiryieldsandmarket
prices
1.36(R4)24.03)1.23(1.62a
)substitutionenergyandCO2-eemissioncreditsfrom
mealutilizationincoﬁringincoal-ﬁredpower
station;someenergyinputandCO2-eemissionalso
allocatedtoglycerolaccordingtoitsyieldand
marketprice
E)59.16GJ/ha
U.K.,21
small-scaleproduction0.700.5317.67(R4)1.86)1.93(0.92a
tomeal(soldasanimalfeed)andglycerol(soldto
pharmaceuticalindustry)accordingtotheiryields
andmarketprices
E)47.22GJ/ha
U.K.,21
large-scaleproduction0.632.2918.13(R4)1.81)2.13(0.73a
tomeal(soldasanimalfeed)andglycerol(soldto
pharmaceuticalindustry)accordingtotheiryields
andmarketprices
E)51.81GJ/ha
Austria,France,
Switzerland,Italy13
R1)1.3-2.1evaluatedwithoutthermalcreditsfrombyproduct
R4)2-3evaluatedwiththermalcreditsfrommealandglycerol
Europe18
4.0-4.8allocationofsomebiogenicCO2-eemissiontomeal
-(1.4-2.2)a
accordingtoitsyieldandmarketprice.
a
ValuesinparenthesesareCO2-eemissionssavingsfromreplacingdieselfuelwithbiodieselonthebasisofequivalentenergycontent.b
ActualaveragerapeseedyieldinLithuaniais1.8t/ha.15c
Withoutarable
landcreditfrombyproducts,thelandrequirementtoproduceenoughbiodieseltocover100kmbyamiddle-sizeandrecentcaris35m2
.Thecorrespondingvaluewitharablelandcreditfrommealis5.5m2
.14

(3.72 kg of CO2-e/L of biodiesel; see Table 2), resulting in
apparently no CO2-e emissions savings.
In terms of labor requirements, 2.18 × 10-2
h of direct labor
is required per net liter of biodiesel (amplification of the labor
requirement 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 required
per liter of diesel fuel supplied to the WA transport sector, giving
a lower net throughput for biodiesel than for diesel fuel (Table
5), which suggests that there would not be enough net biodiesel
to support transport activities that are usually supported by diesel
fuel in the WA transport sector.
For these reasons, replacing diesel fuel in the WA transport
sector by net biodiesel is not a feasible option, despite the
insignificant water requirement (Table 5) of the production
process. However, as mentioned previously, the water require-
ment might also become prohibitive during periods of drought
because of the variability of Australian rainfall.2
3.5. Comparisons with Other Regions and Implications.
Table 6 summarizes the energy and carbon footprints, as well
as land, water, and labor requirements, of biodiesel production
from canola in WA evaluated in this study and those in previous
studies (when data were available) for other regions. It can be
seen in Table 6 that none of the past studies systematically
evaluated carbon and energy footprints or land, water, and labor
requirements. Overall, canola-based biodiesel production has a
somewhat higher energy footprint in WA than in other regions.
Although the difference in energy footprint is affected by many
site-specific factors, the lower canola yield per hectare in WA
than in other regions might have been the most significant reason
for the higher WA energy footprint. Table 7 shows that the effect
of a change in the canola yield on R6, which is directly linked
to the energy footprint, is more significant than the effects of
any changes in the main energy input items indicated in Figure
4. Therefore, the differences in other parameters between WA
and other regions might not be as significant in determining
the higher energy footprint in WA.
The lower canola yield per hectare is directly reflected in the
lower E value in WA than in other regions, which, in turn, leads
to a significantly higher land requirement in WA than in other
regions. Because Figure 5 shows that CO2-e emissions from
managed cropland constitute the single largest CO2-e emissions
contribution from the whole production process, the lower canola
yield per hectare in WA than in other regions might also be the
most significant reason for the somewhat higher WA carbon
footprint.
In general, all of the studies in Table 6 are in agreement that
the agricultural stage dominates the energy and carbon footprints
of biodiesel production. It should be noted, however, that such
comparisons can only be made with great care; particular attention
must be paid to site-specific parameters, to byproduct utilization,
and to the methods by which energy requirements and CO2-e
emissions are allocated and/or credited for byproduct utilization.
Overall, canola-based biodiesel is not sustainable for replacing
a significant fraction of diesel fuel in the WA transport sector.
Its role in WA’s future transport fuel industry is minor. In the
transition to future sustainable biofuels supply, canola-based
biodiesel might offer immediate opportunities to introduce new
transport fuels in the marketplace and develop familiarity among
consumers. A 2% replacement requires over 12% (28% if
process energy is replaced by net biodiesel; see Tables 4 and
5) of the current cropland area for growing oilseeds (for food
production) in WA in a typical year to be dedicated to canola
growing for biodiesel production. Therefore, under the current
conditions in WA, canola-based biodiesel seems to be limited
to replace <2% of the total mineral diesel consumption in WA’s
transport sector. A higher replacement will lead to significant
competition with food production.
4. Conclusions
This article reports a systematic evaluation of the energy and
carbon footprints and land, water, and labor requirements of
biodiesel 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 a
significant 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 to
avoid strong competition for arable land use with food produc-
tion. Within this limit, canola-based biodiesel can offer limited
energy and CO2-e emissions savings and immediate opportuni-
ties for introducing new transport fuels in the marketplace and
developing familiarity among the consumers in our transition
to a future sustainable biofuel supply.
Acknowledgment
This work is partially supported by the Centre for Research
into Energy for Sustainable Transport (CREST) through the
Western Australian Government Centre of Excellence Program.
Supporting Information Available: Tables listing typical
activities associated with canola growing in the Great Southern
and Lakes District, WA (Table S1); typical process parameters of
a canola oil extraction plant (Table S2) and a vegetable oil
transesterification plant (Table S3); typical transport activity
parameters in the process chain of biodiesel production from canola
in 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-e
emissions 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, and
pesticides (Table S11); and land and water availability and labor
productivity in supplying diesel fuel to the transport sector in WA
in a typical year (Table S12). This material is available free of
charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
Table 7. Effect of Changing Canola Yield and Main Energy Input
Items on the Overall Energy Ratio of Canola-Based Biodiesel
Production in WA when All Byproducts Are Utilized (R6)
parameter changea
R6
b
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 yield
and main energy input items considered in this study. b
Value of R6 after
change in canola yield and main energy input items. c
Values in
parentheses are the percentage increase or decrease in R6 after change in
canola yield and main energy input items when compared to the value
of 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 typesenergy
units. In Australian Energy StatisticssAustralian Energy Update; Australian
Bureau 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. Growing
Western 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 Biofuels
Taskforce Report; Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia:
South Perth, Australia, 2007.
(10) Batchelor, S. E.; Booth, E. J.; Walker, K. C. Energy Analysis of
Rape Methyl Ester (RME) Production from Winter Oilseed Rape. Ind. Crops
Prod. 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 Emissions
Analysis 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 LCA
Comparing 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 as
a Transprot Fuel; Report ETSU-R-71; Energy Technology Support Unit,
HMSO: London, 1992.
(14) Halleux, H.; Lassaux, S.; Renzoni, R.; Germain, A. Comparative
Life Cycle Assessment of Two Biofuels: Ethanol from Sugar Beet and
Rapeseed Methyl Ester. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008, 13, 184–190.
(15) Janulis, P. Reduction of Energy Consumption in Biodiesel Fuel
Life Cycle. Renew. Energy 2004, 29, 861–871.
(16) Kaltschmitt, M.; Reinhardt, G. A.; Stelzer, T. Life Cycle Analysis
of Biofuels Under Different Environmental Aspects. Biomass Bioenergy
1997, 12, 121–134.
(17) Mortimer, N. D.; Elsayed, M. A. North East Biofuel Supply Chain
Carbon Intensity Assessment.; North Energy Associates Ltd.: Sheffield, U.K.,
2006.
(18) Reijnders, L.; Huijbregts, M. A. J. Biogenic Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Linked to the Life Cycles of Biodiesel Derived from European
Rapeseed and Brazilian Soybeans. J. Cleaner Prod. 2008, 16, 1943–1948.
(19) Richards, I. R. Energy Balances in the Growth of Oilseed Rape
for 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 the
Sustainability 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 Great
Southern and Lakes District; Bulletin 4411; Department of Agriculture and
Food Western Australia: South Perth, Australia, 2001.
(23) Riverland Oilseeds. http://www.riverland.com.au/ (accessed Nov
25, 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 Biodiesel
Handbook; 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 Biomass
in 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 Fourth
Assessment 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 Cropping
Systems 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 in
AustraliasIssues and Prospects; RIRDC Publication No. 07/071; Rural
Industries Research and Development Corporation: Barton, ACT, Australia,
2007.
(33) Mailer, R. Canola Meal: Limitations and Opportunities; Australian
Oilseeds 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 Conservation
Benefits. Science 1995, 267, 1117–1123.
ReceiVed for reView June 19, 2010
ReVised manuscript receiVed September 9, 2010
Accepted September 10, 2010
IE1013162

Biodiesel production from canola in western australia

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Similar to Biodiesel production from canola in western australia

Similar to Biodiesel production from canola in western australia (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Biodiesel production from canola in western australia