Penilaian Jejak Karbon (LCA) pada Industri Pengolahan Sawit Mikro-Skala: Titik Kendali Emisi dan Opsi Dekarbonisasi
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Industri pengolahan sawit mikro-skala kerap terabaikan dalam kajian jejak karbon, padahal praktik operasionalnya berpotensi memunculkan emisi tinggi dari pengelolaan POME dan sistem uap sederhana. Penelitian ini melakukan penilaian daur hidup (LCA) beracuan ISO 14040/14044 dengan unit fungsional 1 ton CPO (cradle-to-gate), menggabungkan data primer operasi pabrik mikro dan data sekunder (IPCC 2019, inventori LCI) untuk memetakan titik kendali emisi dan mengevaluasi opsi dekarbonisasi yang layak. Hasil menunjukkan intensitas emisi baseline sekitar ~900 kg CO₂e/ton CPO (P5–P95: 760–1080), dengan kontribusi dominan POME anaerob terbuka (~52%) dan ketel/uap (~27%). Analisis sensitivitas mengidentifikasi MCF POME (elastisitas 0,52) dan efisiensi ketel (0,31) sebagai pendorong utama variasi. Skenario kolam tertutup + CHP biogas menurunkan emisi hingga ~360 kg CO₂e/ton, sementara retrofit ketel (economizer/kontrol O₂) dan optimasi logistik TBS termasuk opsi biaya negatif. Paket terintegrasi CHP biogas + retrofit ketel + optimasi rute menurunkan emisi hingga ~49% dari baseline. Kurva biaya marjinal (MACC) memprioritaskan tindakan operasional berbiaya rendah/negatif lebih dulu, diikuti investasi menengah untuk memaksimalkan pengurangan emisi. Temuan ini memberikan peta jalan dekarbonisasi bertahap yang praktis dan ekonomis bagi UMKM sawit, sekaligus menyoroti kebutuhan pemantauan parameter kunci POME dan efisiensi ketel guna memastikan kinerja emisi yang robust di lapangan.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
[2] ISO. (2006). ISO 14044:2006—Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.
[3] ISO. (2020). ISO 14044:2006/Amd 2:2020—Amendment 2. International Organization for Standardization.
[4] IPCC. (2019). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC TFI.
[5] Forster, P., et al. (2021). AR6 WG1—Chapter 7: The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks and Climate Sensitivity. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Cambridge Univ. Press. doi:10.1017/9781009157896.009
[6] GHG Protocol. (2024). Global Warming Potential (GWP) Values (AR5 & AR6). (methane GWP guidance).
[7] Yacob, S., Hassan, M. A., Shirai, Y., Wakisaka, M., & Subash, S. (2006). Baseline study of methane emission from anaerobic ponds of palm oil mill effluent treatment. Science of the Total Environment, 366(1), 187–196. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.07.003
[8] Yacob, S., Hassan, M. A., Shirai, Y., Wakisaka, M., & Subash, S. (2006). Baseline study of methane emission from anaerobic ponds of palm oil mill effluent treatment. Science of the Total Environment, 366(1), 187–196. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.07.003
[9] Sharvini, S. R., Noor, Z. Z., Chong, C. S., Stringer, L. C., & Glew, D. (2020). Energy generation from palm oil mill effluent: A life cycle assessment of two biogas technologies. Energy, 191, 116513. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.116513
[10] asution, M. A., Wibawa, D. S., Ahamed, T., & Noguchi, R. (2018). Comparative environmental impact evaluation of palm oil mill effluent treatment using a life cycle assessment approach: A case study based on composting and a combination for biogas technologies in North Sumatera of Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 1028–1040. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.299
[11] Stichnothe, H., & Schuchardt, F. (2011). Life cycle assessment of two palm oil production systems. Biomass & Bioenergy, 35(9), 3976–3984. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.001
[12] Stichnothe, H., & Schuchardt, F. (2010). Comparison of different treatment options for palm oil production waste on a life cycle basis. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(9), 907–915. doi:10.1007/s11367-010-0223-0
[13] Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., & Weidema, B. P. (2016). The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): Overview and methodology. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1218–1230. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8
[14] Steubing, B., Wernet, G., Reinhard, J., Bauer, C., & Moreno-Ruiz, E. (2016). The ecoinvent database version 3 (part II): Analyzing LCA results and comparison to version 2. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1257–1271. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1109-6
[15] Patthanaissaranukool, W., Polprasert, C., & Englande, A. J. (2013). Potential reduction of carbon emissions from crude palm oil production based on energy and carbon balances. Applied Energy, 102, 710–717. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.08.023
[16] Wahyono, Y., Hadiyanto, H., Budihardjo, M. A., & Adiansyah, J. S. (2020). Assessing the environmental performance of palm oil biodiesel production in Indonesia: A life cycle assessment approach. Energies, 13(12), 3248. doi:10.3390/en13123248
[17] De Rosa, M., & Schmidt, J. (2022). Life Cycle Assessment of Palm Oil at United Plantations Berhad 2022 (Results 2004–2021). 2.-0 LCA Consultants/United Plantations Berhad. (Laporan teknis, PDF).
[18] Anyaoha, K. E., et al. (2023). Technology-based comparative life cycle assessment for palm oil industry: The case of Nigeria. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25, 3237–3257. doi:10.1007/s10668-022-02215-8
[19] Teow, Y. H., et al. (2021). Comparative environmental impact evaluation of palm oil mill effluent treatment using a life cycle assessment approach: A case study based on integrated membrane processes. Sustainable Environment Research, 31, 65. doi:10.1186/s42834-021-00089-5
[20] Pleanjai, S., & Gheewala, S. H. (2009). Full chain energy analysis of biodiesel production from palm oil in Thailand. Applied Energy, 86(Suppl 1), S209–S214. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.05.013
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.