1 Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Eduardo Mondlane University, Maputo, Mozambique.
2 ECROT Department, Faculty of Environmental and Natural Resource Engineering, Zambeze University, Chimoio, Mozambique.
World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1416–1426
Article DOI: 10.30574/wjarr.2025.28.2.3875
Received 08 October 2025; revised on 15 November 2025; accepted on 17 November 2025
This study compares the environmental and economic performance of diesel and Jatropha biodiesel using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and cost analysis for a functional unit of 1,000 km traveled. Results indicate that Jatropha biodiesel reduces overall environmental impact by approximately 37%, primarily due to net negative CO₂ emissions from carbon sequestration during cultivation, and offers significant improvements in global warming potential, fossil fuel depletion, and particulate matter formation. However, biodiesel requires 111.1 liters versus 100 liters of diesel for the same distance, reflecting its lower energy density (37 MJ/L vs. 43 MJ/L), and incurs a 42.7% higher cost per unit of useful energy (USD 0.157/MJ vs. USD 0.09/MJ), raising the total cost for 1,000 km from USD 136 to USD 225.53. Qualitatively, Jatropha biodiesel emerges as a cleaner alternative with strong climate benefits, but its competitiveness is constrained by higher production costs, land use, and water consumption. These findings highlight the need for technological improvements and policy support to enhance the economic viability of biodiesel while leveraging its environmental advantages.
Life Cycle Assessment; Jatropha Biodiesel; Environmental Impact; Renewable Energy; Sustainable Fuel Alternatives
Preview Article PDF
Jorge Nhambiu, José Gui Naldo Muchanga and Fernando Chichango. Diesel or Jatropha Biodiesel? A life cycle assessment approach for sustainable energy decisions. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 1416–1426. Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.28.2.3875.
Copyright © 2025 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0