Technical Insights into Crude Palm Oil (CPO) Production Through Water–Energy–Product (WEP) Analysis

Abstract

The demand for palm oil is expected to increase due to its wide use in the market. Palm oil is extracted from the fruit of the African palm tree, yielding crude palm oil (CPO) and palm kernel oil (PKO). The production process involves multiple stages, from harvesting to drying; while the problem lies in the scarcity of fresh fruit bunches and the lack of diagnosis of the process. This study proposes to carry out a WEP (Water–Energy–Product) technical assessment to optimize the use of water, energy, and raw materials in the production of CPO, calculating a series of technical parameters and indicators and determining the latter’s efficiency. The results showed that for a processing capacity of 30,000 kg/h of African palm bunches, 5070 kg/h of CPO were obtained, reaching a production yield of 69.63%, a wastewater production ratio (WPR) of 58.64 %, a fractional water consumption (FWC) of 2.38 m³/t of CPO, a total cost of freshwater (TCF) of 347.33 USD/day, a total cost of energy (TCE) of 13,235.95 USD/day, an energy-specific intensity (ESI) of 4905.66 MJ/t of CPO, a natural gas consumption index (NGCI) of 103,421.65 m³/t of CPO, an electric energy consumption index (EECI) of 165.67 kWh/t of CPO, and a net energy ratio (NER) and energy utilization index (ECI) of 165.67 kWh/t of CPO. The EUI is higher than 1. Additionally, five indicators showed an efficiency higher than 80%, highlighting the energy indicators (TCE, NGCI, and EECI), which reached the highest efficiency (95.45%) due to the predominant use of natural gas, and the water indicators (FWC and TCF), which reached 92.90% and 88.12%, respectively. Finally, improvements are required in the WPR (41.36%) and the ESI (78.13%), which merit optimization techniques using mass and energy integration, respectively.

1. Introduction

The demand for palm oil is expected to rise in the future due to the growing need for palm oil-based products, including cooking oils, cosmetics, and food items. Additionally, palm oil has been recognized as a potential alternative to replace non-renewable fossil fuels, used for biodiesel production [1]. To keep up with this trend, palm oil production must also be increased around the world. The top five countries that produce it are Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Colombia, and Nigeria [2]. Now, palm oil is derived from the ripe mesocarp of the fruits of the African oil palm (Elaeis guineensis); the oil palm fruit is a drupe that grows in dense, pointed clusters [3]. The production process involves multiple steps, beginning with the cultivation of palm oil trees on plantations [4]. Once matured, fresh fruit bunches of the palm tree yield two different kinds of oil: crude palm oil (CPO), which is extracted from the mesocarp, and palm kernel oil (PKO), obtained from the inner part of the palm kernel [5]. In this context, the production of crude palm oil (CPO) includes several steps, such as receiving fresh fruit bunches, weighing and grading them, loading them into cages, sterilizing, shelling, and threshing. The process continues with digestion, pressing, clarification, kernel extraction, and finally, drying [6].

According to the above, the main technical problems of palm oil production processes lie in the scarcity of fresh fruit bunches (FFB) [7] and the absence of continuous monitoring of the process [8]. Therefore, a detailed technical analysis of the use of natural resources and industrial services is required to determine the efficiency of the process in obtaining the desired product. In this way, deficiencies in the use of raw materials, water, and energy are identified, and strategies are proposed to improve the process through optimization techniques [9]. According to previous studies, one of the key performance indicators of the CPO production process is the oil extraction rate (OER), which indicates the amount of oil that can be extracted from the FFB [10]. Although this indicator is not associated with the present study, it provides a basis for the present research. In addition, it is associated with the productivity, competitiveness, and sustainability of the CPO production process in the market [11] and influences the technical, economic, and environmental decisions of the same. In this sense, to develop the technical analysis of the crude palm oil production process, the WEP (Water–Energy–Product) technical evaluation methodology is proposed, which has its foundations in the technical analysis of a PVC production process by suspension [12] and has been implemented in bioprocesses such as a biorefinery from the Creole-Antillean avocado [13]; in both cases, the need for optimization techniques was concluded, including mass and energy integration of processes, which allow minimizing water and energy requirements, respectively [14].

It is worth noting that, although various studies have been carried out in the context of the sustainability of the crude palm oil production process, such as life cycle assessments using version 5 [15] or version 7.1 [16] of the SimaPro software, exergy assessments for both single-product processes [17] and biorefineries [18] from African oil palm, techno-economic assessments with sensitivity analysis of palm-based biorefineries [19], and environmental assessments with the Waste Reduction (WAR) algorithm for individual product processes [20] and biorefineries [21] utilizing African oil palm, research that is focused on the technical analysis of CPO production is being developed for the first time. In this order of ideas, the purpose of this article is to technically evaluate the crude palm oil production process by modifying the WEP methodology for this particular system, considering four stages in which it is intended to calculate seven technical parameters (raw material mass flow, product mass flow, total freshwater volumetric flow, total wastewater volumetric flow, total electricity consumed, total natural gas consumed, and total energy consumed) based on information collected from the literature, and ten technical indicators related to water consumption (fractional water consumption (FWC), total cost of freshwater (TCF), and wastewater production ratio (WPR)), energy consumption (total cost of energy (TCE), energy-specific intensity (ESI), net energy ratio (NER), energy utilization index (EUI), natural gas consumption index (NGCI), and electric energy consumption index (EECI)) and the performance in obtaining the desired product (production yield).

In addition, this evaluation is expected to determine the efficiency of eight of these ten technical indicators to visualize improvement opportunities in the CPO production process. In summary, in this research, a WEP (Water–Energy–Product) technical assessment was developed to measure the efficiency of the use of water, energy, and raw materials (African palm bunches) in the single-product process of crude palm oil (CPO), which is a bioproduct in considerable demand at an international level. In this way, it was possible to diagnose the process globally through ten technical indicators and the efficiency of eight of these ten indicators, identifying deficiencies and opportunities for improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Process Description

Figure 1 presents the block diagram illustrating the key stages of the crude palm oil extraction process. Operation conditions given in this study are based on a real operation of a palm oil production plant and do not come from experiments. A total of 30,000 kg/h of African palm bunches (stream 1) at 303 K and 1 atm, with an oil content of 7282 kg/h, are transported from a hopper to enclosed horizontal cylinders via wagons, where they undergo sterilization through the application of 8175 kg/h of saturated steam (stream 4) at 421 K and 4 atm. This step aims to prevent the action of the lipase enzyme on free fatty acids and to hydrolyze the palm rachis, softening the pulp tissues. As a result, 26,696 kg/h of the sterilized bunches at 406 K and 3 atm (stream 5) emerges, along with 10,063 kg/h of condensed water at 358 K and 1 atm (stream 2), and 1416 kg/h of steam at 421 K and 4 atm (stream 3). Following sterilization, 18,927 kg/h of fruits at 406 K and 3 atm (stream 7) are separated from 7769 kg/h of rachis under the same operating conditions (stream 6) using a rotating drum. The detached fruits then proceed to the digestion stage, where they are reheated to facilitate oil extraction during pressing and to loosen the pulp from the nuts. This process involves maceration with the introduction of 1350 kg/h of steam (stream 8) at 421 K and 1 atm. A total of 20,277 kg/h of the digested fruits at 378 K and 1 atm (stream 9) are subsequently pressed within a horizontal cylindrical perforated basket, extracting 8582 kg/h of a liquor rich in oil (stream 11) at 378 K and 1 atm. This liquor is produced through the mechanical action of two regressive worm screws, which rotate in parallel but in opposite directions. Meanwhile, 11,695 kg/h of press cake at 378 K and 1 atm is discharged from the top of these screws (stream 10) [20].

A total of 2535 kg/h of water at 358 K and 1 atm is added to the press liquor (stream 12) to dilute it, making oil separation and purification easier. In the static clarification stage (by decantation), up to 90% of the oil (5078 kg/h at 365 K and 1 atm) is separated, collected by overflow, and pumped (stream 16) to the drying process. The remaining 10% of the oil is recovered in the dynamic clarification stage (by centrifugation). At this stage, the heavier fraction from settling enters (stream 13, 6711 kg/h at 365 K and 1 atm), with water and heavy sludge exiting through the nozzles (stream 14, 6040 kg/h at 375 K and 1 atm), while oil and light sludge concentrate in the center and are discharged via a collection tube. This mixture is recirculated to the static clarification process along with the press liquor (stream 15, 671 kg/h at 365 K and 1 atm). In the final stage, the oil undergoes drying to minimize residual moisture and impurities (stream 17, 8 kg/h at 333 K and 1 atm). Due to the high temperature at which the oil exits, this drying is performed under a vacuum, reducing stream pressure and causing the evaporation of any remaining water. The dried palm oil is then pumped as the final product (5070 kg/h at 333 K and 1 atm) to its designated storage (stream 18) [20].

2.2. Technical Evaluation of the Crude Palm Oil Production via Water–Energy–Product (WEP)

The WEP (Water–Energy–Product) technical evaluation was initially proposed by Aguilar-Vásquez et al. (2023) to analyze a PVC production process by suspension [12]; however, this methodology has been implemented for biorefineries, as is the case of the study developed by García-Maza et al. (2024) for an extractive-based biorefinery of Creole-Antillean avocado [13]. Now, to carry out the WEP technical evaluation of the crude palm oil production process, some modifications were made to the base methodology because this process does not have a reaction stage, and 4 stages were considered for the technical analysis, which is shown in Figure 2.

The first stage of the technical evaluation of the crude palm oil production process is based on the information obtained from the simulation of the process, i.e., the extended material and energy balances. This information was obtained from the literature, specifically from research where other sustainability assessments were developed for the crude palm oil production process, such as the one carried out by González-Delgado and Peralta-Ruíz (2016) about the environmental assessment of a crude palm oil production process, where the material balance of the process was obtained, including the mass flow of by-products and product, freshwater requirements and operating conditions [20]; or research such as that developed by Martínez et al. (2016) about the exergy assessment of crude palm oil production, where information regarding the simulation and energy consumption of the process was obtained [17]. Additionally, in this stage, economic information about the industrial services used is required, including the cost of freshwater and the cost of energy; in the first case, a cost of 1.2 USD/m³ of freshwater was considered, while in the second case, a cost of 0.41 USD/kWh of electricity and 10 USD/MMBTU of natural gas was considered [12]. Furthermore, the heating value of the feedstock and the product needs to be determined; in the first case, the calorific value of the empty fruit bunches (EFB) is 17.85 MJ/kg [22], and in the second case, the calorific value of crude palm oil is 35.20 MJ/kg [23].

In the second stage, taking into account the information collected in the first stage, seven technical parameters are calculated. The product-related parameters are the product flow rate and the raw material flow rate. The water-related parameters are the freshwater flow rate and the wastewater flow rate, and the energy-related parameters are the total energy flow rate, the natural gas consumption, and the electricity consumption. Subsequently, in the third stage, ten technical indicators are calculated using the seven parameters mentioned above. Of these, one is associated with the product; it is called production yield (${\mathsf{\gamma }}_{\mathrm{i}}$), it is measured in percentage, it indicates the product yield per unit of feed and it is calculated with Equation (1). Three of these technical indicators belong to water use. One of them is fractional water consumption (FWC), which is measured in m³/t; it represents the amount of water used to produce the product and is calculated with Equation (2). Another is the total cost of freshwater (TCF), which is measured in USD/day; it denotes the total price of freshwater consumed per unit of time, and it is calculated with Equation (3). And another is the wastewater production ratio (WPR), which is measured as a percentage; it indicates the relationship between the volume of freshwater needed for the process and the amount of wastewater generated and is calculated using Equation (4) [12].

Finally, six of the technical indicators are focused on energy. One of them is the total cost of energy (TCE), which is measured in USD/day; it represents the total cost of energy consumed per unit of time and is calculated using Equation (5). Another is the energy-specific intensity (ESI), which is measured in MJ/t; it indicates the energy consumed per ton of product and is calculated using Equation (6). Another is the net energy ratio (NER), which is dimensionless; it indicates the relationship between the energy content of the products and the energy that enters the process and is calculated using Equation (7). Another is the energy utilization index (EUI), which is dimensionless; it establishes the relationship between the energy obtainable from the product if it were used as fuel and the energy needed to obtain it and is calculated using Equation (8). Another is the natural gas consumption index (NGCI), which is measured in m³/t; it indicates the amount of gas consumed per ton of product and is calculated using Equation (9). Finally, there is the electric energy consumption index (EECI), which is measured in kWh/t; it represents the amount of kilowatt hours consumed per ton of product and is calculated using Equation (10) [12].

$${\mathsf{\gamma }}_{\mathrm{i}}={\displaystyle \frac{{\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{\mathrm{p}}}{{\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{m}}}}\times 100\mathrm{\%}$$

(1)

$$\mathrm{F}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{C}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{W}}}{{\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{\mathrm{p}}}}$$

(2)

$$\mathrm{T}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{F}={\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{W}}\times \mathrm{F}\mathrm{C}$$

(3)

$$\mathrm{W}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W}}}{{\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{W}}}}\times 100\mathrm{\%}$$

(4)

$$\mathrm{T}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{E}={\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{T}}\times \mathrm{E}\mathrm{C}$$

(5)

$${\mathrm{R}}_{\mathrm{E}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{I}}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{T}}}{{\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{\mathrm{p}}}}$$

(6)

$$\mathrm{N}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{R}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{p}}\times {\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{\mathrm{p}}}{{\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{T}}+({\mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{m}}\times {\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{m}})}}$$

(7)

$$\mathrm{E}\mathrm{U}\mathrm{I}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{p}}\times {\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{\mathrm{p}}}{{\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{T}}}}$$

(8)

$$\mathrm{N}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{I}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{G}}}{{\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{\mathrm{p}}}}$$

(9)

$$\mathrm{E}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{I}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{E}\mathrm{E}}}{{\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{\mathrm{p}}}}$$

(10)

where ${\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{\mathrm{p}}$ is product mass flow, ${\dot{\mathrm{m}}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{m}}$ is raw material mass flow, ${\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{W}}$ is freshwater (FW) volumetric flow, $\mathrm{F}\mathrm{C}$ is freshwater cost, ${\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W}}$ is wastewater (WW) volumetric flow, ${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ is total energy consumed, $\mathrm{E}\mathrm{C}$ is energy cost, ${\mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{p}}$ is the high heating value of the product, ${\mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{m}}$ is the high heating value of the raw material, ${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{G}}$ is total natural gas consumed, and ${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{E}\mathrm{E}}$ is total electric energy consumed.

In the fourth stage, maximum and minimum technical limits were established for eight of the ten technical indicators, considering the characteristics of the crude palm oil production process, to provide an initial assessment of how the process aligns with the defined objectives. This analysis is performed by normalizing the technical indicators against reference parameters (worst-case and best-case scenarios) to determine their efficiency. The calculation of the performance or efficiency of an indicator i (${\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}}$) is carried out with Equations (11) and (12) using a minimum (${\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}}$) and maximum (${\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}}$) reference value; the use of one or the other will depend on whether the indicator i must be reduced or increased for the performance to have a favorable performance. According to the reference values shown in

Table 1. Technical limits of the crude palm oil production.

Variable	Worst-Case Scenario	Best-Case Scenario
Yield	0.00%	100.00%
FWC	17.80 m3/t	1.20 m3/t
TCF	2815.80 USD/day	14.60 USD/day
WPR	100.00%	0.00%
TCE	67,985.68 USD/day	10,626.95 USD/day
ESI	5514.38 MJ/t	4735.25 MJ/t
NGCI	0.00%	92.03%
EECI	100.00%	7.97%

, the percentage performance of the eight technical indicators was evaluated, highlighting that the NER and EUI indicators, due to their particularity in the calculation, were not included in this stage.

$$\mathrm{E}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{y}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}}-{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}}}{{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}}-{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}}}}\ast 100\mathrm{\%}$$

(11)

$$\mathrm{E}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{y}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}}-{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}}}{{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}}-{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}}}}\ast 100\%$$

(12)

To establish the best and worst scenario in the eight indicators for calculating their efficiency, information was collected from the literature and some engineering considerations were assumed. In this sense, for the yield it was established that the best case would be that 100% of the oil content (7282 kg/h) in the raw material, African palm bunches (30,000 kg/h), is transformed into product (crude palm oil) and that the worst case would be that 0% is transformed into CPO. Regarding the water-related indicators, for the fractional water consumption (FWC), it was established that the worst case would be to consume the amount of water per ton of CPO used in a plantation (17.80 m³/t) [24], while the best case would be to consume the additional 50% of the amount of water per ton of CPO used in a nursery (0.80 m³/t) [25], since a larger-scale process is being considered. For the total cost of freshwater (TCF), it was established that the worst case would be using the amount of water used in a plantation at a price of 1.3 USD/m³ of demineralized water, while the best case would be using the additional 50% of the amount of water used in a nursery at a price of 0.1 USD/m³ of raw water [26]. And, for the wastewater production ratio (WPR), it was established that the best case would be that 0% of freshwater is used in the process, while the worst case would be to use 100% of freshwater.

On the other hand, considering the energy-related indicators, for the total cost of energy (TCE), it was established that the best case would be to consider 92.03% of the total energy as natural gas and 7.97% of the total energy as electricity, taking into account the costs of both energy sources, while the worst case would be to consider that 100% of the energy used in the process is electrical; it should be noted that it is considered that the worst case is to present higher electricity requirements because it is significantly more expensive than natural gas [27]. For the energy-specific intensity (ESI), it was established that the best case would be to consider the minimum quantities of natural gas (21,849 MJ/h) and electrical energy (2160 MJ/h) required per ton of CPO, while the worst case would be to consider the maximum quantities of natural gas (24,935 MJ/h) and electrical energy (3024 MJ/h) required per ton of CPO.

The lowest natural gas requirement (21,849 MJ/h) was determined from the simulation of the crude palm oil production process [17]; the highest natural gas requirement (24,935 MJ/h) was obtained from sensible heat and latent heat calculations for the conversion of 8175 kg/h of water (298 K) into steam (421 K) in the sterilization stage heater, considering an efficiency of 90% in the heater [28], and the lowest (2160 MJ/h) and highest (3024 MJ/h) electrical energy requirements were obtained from reports of crude palm oil extractors [29]. Now, for the natural gas consumption index (NGCI), it was determined that the best case would be to implement 92.03% of the total energy as natural gas and that the worst case would be to use 0% of the total energy as natural gas; the value of 92.03% represents the percentage of considering the maximum amount of natural gas (24,935 MJ/h). Finally, for the electric energy consumption index (EECI), it was established that the best case would be to implement 7.97% of the total energy as electricity and that the worst case would be to use 100% of the total energy as electricity; the value of 7.97% represents the percentage of considering the minimum amount of electricity (2160 MJ/h).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. WEP Technical Parameters and Indicators of the Crude Palm Oil Production

Table 2. WEP technical parameters of the crude palm oil production.

Parameter	Value
Raw material mass flow (kg/h)	30,000.00
Product mass flow (kg/h)	5070.23
Total freshwater volumetric flow (m3/h)	12.06
Total wastewater volumetric flow (m3/h)	7.07
Total electricity consumed (MJ/h)	3024.00
Total natural gas consumed (MJ/h)	21,848.81
Total energy consumed (MJ/h)	24,872.81

presents the seven WEP technical parameters used in the technical evaluation of the crude palm oil production process. This involves considering the flow of raw material and product, i.e., the African palm bunches and crude palm oil, respectively. Additionally, the amount of freshwater used in the process is considered, mainly in the clarification stage and for the production of steam in the sterilization and digestion stages; likewise, the flow of wastewater generated, mainly in the sterilization stages, such as condensate and centrifugation, together with heavy sludge and impurities, is determined. Finally, the energy consumed in the process is accounted for, considering the main energy sources in the production of crude palm oil, which are natural gas and electric energy. All these parameters allow us to analyze how the process uses natural resources and industrial services globally.

Table 3. WEP technical indicators of the crude palm oil production.

Indicator	Value
Yield (%)	69.63
WPR (%)	58.64
FWC (m3/t)	2.38
TCF (USD/day)	347.33
TCE (USD/day)	13,235.95
ESI (MJ/t)	4905.66
NGCI (m3/t)	103,421.65
EECI (kWh/t)	165.67
NER (Dimensionless)	1.15
EUI (Dimensionless)	7.18

presents the ten WEP technical indicators used in the technical evaluation of the crude palm oil production process. The value obtained for the production yield is 69.63%, which is because the 24% (7282 kg/h) of the African palm bunches (30,000 kg/h) that enters the process is related to the amount of crude palm oil (5070 kg/h) that is produced. However, according to previous studies, it has been established that the extraction rate of CPO from the African palm bunch usually ranges between 18% and 22%, which means that for every 100 kg of African palm bunch processed, approximately 18 to 22 kg of CPO are obtained [30]. In this sense, the value obtained in the evaluation is well above that stipulated in the literature, mainly because in the second case (literature), the entire palm bunch is considered, while in the first case (this article), only the oil composition in the African palm bunch was considered.

Regarding the water-related indicators, for the wastewater production ratio (WPR), a value of 58.64% was obtained, which indicates that of the 12.06 m³/h of freshwater that enters the process, 58.64% is converted into wastewater, obtaining a flow rate of 7.07 m³/h. This value would be expected to be less than 30% to represent an efficient use of water resources in the process, which can be achieved through optimization techniques, such as mass integration of wastewater effluents like the study developed about minimizing water consumption and optimizing processes in palm oil plants [31]. For the fractional water consumption (FWC), a value of 2.38 m³/t of CPO was obtained, which is an optimistic result because it indicates that the flow of freshwater entering the process is used appropriately to obtain the desired product flow; on the other hand, in a crude palm oil production process in Malaysia, a FWC of 5.50 m³/t of CPO was obtained [32], which is higher than that obtained in the present study and indicates that a higher amount of water is used to obtain a ton of CPO, demonstrating that the crude palm oil production process investigated presents a higher efficiency in the FWC indicator than the Malaysian process. And, for the total cost of freshwater (TCF), a value of 347.33 USD/day was obtained, in which a freshwater price of 1.2 USD/m³ [12] and a flow of 12.06 m³/h were considered [20].

Regarding the energy-related indicators, for the total cost of energy (TCE), a value of 13,235.95 USD/day was obtained, considering that 87.84% of the total energy of the system (24,872.81 MJ/h) is used as natural gas (21,848.81 MJ/h) and 12.16% as electricity (3024.00 MJ/h), at a natural gas price of 10 USD/MMBTU and at an electric energy cost of 0.41 USD/kWh [12]. For the energy-specific intensity (ESI) a value of 4905.66 MJ/t of CPO was obtained, considering that the total energy of the system is 24,872.81 MJ/h and the flow of crude palm oil is 5070.23 kg/h [17]. Now, for the natural gas consumption index (NGCI), a result of 103,421.65 m³ of natural gas per ton of CPO was obtained, representing 87.84% (21,848.81 MJ/h) of the total energy of the system (24,872.81 MJ/h). And, for the electric energy consumption index (EECI), a result of 165.67 kWh of electric energy per ton of CPO was obtained, representing 12.16% (3024.00 MJ/h) of the total energy of the system (24,872.81 MJ/h). These indicators demonstrate an efficient use of energy in the process of obtaining CPO, since a higher amount of natural gas than electricity is used in the process.

On the other hand, for the net energy ratio (NER), a value of 1.15 was obtained, which is higher than 1 and indicates that the fuel system has a net energy gain; that is, the energy supplied to the process is less than the energy obtained from the products [33]. Finally, for the energy utilization index (EUI), a value of 7.18 was obtained, which is much higher than 1 and indicates that crude palm oil can potentially be used as fuel due to its high energy content, as demonstrated by many investigations in which CPO is used as a biofuel, particularly biodiesel [34].

3.2. Performance of the WEP Technical Indicators of the Crude Palm Oil Production

Figure 3 shows the efficiency of the eight technical indicators for the crude palm oil production process, which measure the performance in terms of water, energy, and product, as well as possibilities for process improvement through process optimization techniques using mass and/or energy integration.

According to Figure 3, five of the eight indicators obtained an efficiency above 80%, which shows that the crude palm oil production process has very few deficiencies. The figure highlights that, for the technical indicators related to water, the fractional water consumption (FWC) presents an efficiency of 92.90% and the total cost of freshwater (TCF) has an efficiency of 88.12%, demonstrating an efficient use of water resources in the production of CPO. Additionally, three technical energy indicators—the total cost of energy (TCE), the natural gas consumption index (NGCI), and the electric energy consumption index (EECI)—obtained the highest efficiency (95.45%), because the predominant energy source in the process is natural gas. On the other hand, the production yield shows a lower efficiency, resulting in 69.63%; however, this result does not demonstrate a failure, because, being a single-product process, only the yield concerning the CPO is considered, without considering by-products such as palm rachis.

Finally, the process improvement opportunities lie in the wastewater production ratio (WPR) and the energy-specific intensity (ESI). In the first case, under the context of water resource requirements, an efficiency below 50% was obtained, resulting in 41.36%, due to the inadequate relationship between freshwater and wastewater in the process; for this reason, it is suggested to perform a mass integration of water effluents, as in the study on the optimal development of a unified palm oil complex with a strategy for eliminating palm oil mill effluents, where a 61% reduction in water demand was achieved [35]. In the second case, under the context of energy requirements, an efficiency below 80% was obtained, resulting in 78.13%, due to the inadequate relationship between net energy flow and obtained CPO; for this reason, it is suggested to carry out an energy integration, as in the study on design and evaluation of energy-efficient integrated processes for crude palm oil and palm kernel oil production, where two types of cogeneration systems were incorporated into this integrated process to enhance energy efficiency: one based on a conventional boiler, and the other on an internal combustion engine [36].

4. Conclusions

This particular process has a processing capacity of 30,000 kg/h of African palm bunches, from which 5070 kg/h of CPO was obtained, reaching a production yield of 69.63%, since the quantity of palm oil in the raw material is exclusively related to the CPO produced. In terms of water indicators, the WPR was 58.64%, meaning that 7.07 m³/h of the 12.06 m³/h freshwater input was converted to wastewater; the FWC was 2.38 m³/t CPO, lower than Malaysia’s 5.50 m³/t, indicating higher efficiency; and the TCF was USD 347.33/day. In terms of energy, the TCE was USD 13,235.95/day, mainly from natural gas (87.84%); the ESI was 4905.66 MJ/t CPO, and the NER of 1.15 indicated a net energy gain; the EUI of 7.18 suggests the potential of CPO as a biofuel.

Additionally, five out of eight indicators of the crude palm oil (CPO) production process showed efficiency above 80%, indicating minimal deficiencies. Water-related indicators demonstrated high efficiency, with FWC at 92.90% and TCF at 88.12%, reflecting efficient water use. Energy indicators, including TCE, NGCI, and EECI, reached 95.45%, as natural gas is the main energy source. However, production efficiency was lower at 69.63%, although this is not necessarily negative, as only CPO is considered, excluding by-products. Finally, there are opportunities for improvement in WPR at 41.36%, which requires mass integration of wastewater, and ESI at 78.13%, which suggests energy integration.