MARITIME UNIVERSITY OF CONSTANTA

FACULTY OF NAVAL ELECTROMECHANICS

ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION ESSAY:

ALGAL BIOFUEL AS AN ALTERNATIVE
TO LIQUID FOSSIL FUELS

3RD YEAR STUDENT:

IONESCU VIOREL

CONSTANTA 2016

1
 1. Biofuels from algae: challenges and potential
1.1.Importance & challenges of algal biofuels

The high lipid content, high growth rate and ability to rapidly improve strains and produce co-
products, without competing for arable land, make algae an exciting addition to the sustainable
fuel portfolio. This essay will focus on the requirements for establishing microalgae as an
environmentally and economically viable platform, with an emphasis on combining fuel
production with production of co-products, which we view as an essential strategy for the
economic viability and, hence, broad adoption, of this potential fuel source(see fig.1).

Fig.1. A combination of factors is expected to be required for algal fuels (red line) to become
cost competitive with petroleum (green line: limited petroleum supply, resulting in increased
costs; blue line: business as usual scenario)[1]

These improvements will require years of research and cover (A) bioprospecting for high-oil-
producing, low-input-requiring species; (B)engineering to improve growth, harvesting and
nutrient recycling; (C) further strain improvement through breeding, selection and random
mutagenesis; and (D) bioengineering to improve fuel traits, produce co-products and crop
protection. Broad deployment of monocultured algae will require protection from both biotic and
abiotic factors that allow maximal sustainable growth. Crop protection is a critical focus of
western agriculture and will be crucial for aqua culture for biofuels.
There are considerable challenges to making biofuels capable of competing with petroleum.
Certainly, a premium price is warranted for clean fuels (fuels that have a 50% lower CO2 cradle-
to-grave footprint than petroleum); however, estimated costs of a barrel of algae-based fuel using
current technology is US$ 3002600, compared with $4080 (2009) for petroleum[1].

2
1.2. Challenges for algal fuel commercialization

The high growth rates, reasonable growth densities and high oil contents have all been cited as
reasons to invest significant capital to turn algae into biofuels. However, for algae to mature as
an economically viable platform to offset petroleum and, consequently, mitigate CO2 release,
there are a number of hurdles to overcome ranging from how and where to grow these algae, to
improving oil extraction and fuel processing. The algal biofuels production chain is outlined in
fig.2. and shows that the major challenges include strain isolation, nutrient sourcing and
utilization, production management, harvesting, coproduct development, fuel extraction, refining
and residual biomass utilization.

Fig.2. Algal biofuels production chain[1]

1.3.Nutrient challenge

Algae require nutrients, light, water and a carbon source, most often CO2, for efficient
growth. The major nutrients required by most algae include phosphorous, nitrogen, iron and
sulfur. Often, the nutrient requirement necessary for algal growth is ignored, since algae are very
efficient at sequestering these nutrients when present in their environment[2].
Algae, similar to plants, require sources of phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium, which are the
major components of agricultural fertilizers, and large-scale aquaculture will impact these
already limited supplies. In addition, optimal growth of many algal species requires chelated iron
and sulfur.
Sulfur, in addition to its key role in the electron transport chain, is also required for protein
synthesis and lipid metabolism. Sulfur deficiency has been shown to limit algal density and stunt
growth [3]. Thus, it seems likely that sulfur will be important for optimal algal growth, and

3
cost/benefit analysis will need to be considered to determine the optimal amount of sulfur to add
to the media for the best economic return.
The acquisition of the aforementioned nutrients, as well as potassium and at least nine other
micro- and macro-nutrients, should not be overlooked when considering the implications of
scaling algal biofuel production to meaningful levels [4]. Many of the nutrients may be
supplemented by combining nutrient-rich waste water or agricultural runoff with algal growth
facilities, streamlining water remediation and optimizing economic fuel production. These
strategies appear to be viable at some scale; however, alternative possibilities must also be
developed. Ultimately, a combination of methods may be required, and perhaps a recycling of
micro- and macro-nutrients will have to be developed for algae-based biofuels to reach a
capacity that impacts present fossil fuel use. One of the most promising techniques for recycling
nutrients in algal ponds is to use anaerobic digestion [5]. This bacterial process produces
methane gas, while keeping the majority of the nutrients in a bacterial slurry that can be killed
and the mix used for algal fertilizer. Methane gas is not currently a high-value commodity, but
can help provide energy to operate algae farms, and cheap anaerobic digestion will preclude
producing some types of higher value proteins in the algae. Therefore, a balance should be
reached between efficient anaerobic digestion and high-value co-products, as shown in Figure 3.

Fig.3. Model for maximizing algae biofuel sustainability: nutrients must be recycled[1]

In fig. 3. is presented a model of how we expect nutrient utilization to occur as the field
matures. Algae will be harvested and the oil will be extracted, the remaining biomass
(carbohydrates/proteins) will either be recycled for nutrients through anaerobic digestion or
similar means, producing methane gas and a nutrient-rich slurry, which can then be fed back into
the algal pond, rather than exogenously produced fertilizers, or used to for high-value co-

4
products, ranging from industrial enzymes, nutraceuticals or animal feed stocks. Some of these
nutrients can be recycled through waste water, while others will be lost due to runoff.

1.4. Competition with petroleum: getting the price right

With current estimates of algal-based biofuels ranging from US$3002600 per barrel based
on current technology, technical hurdles need to be overcome to improve this price. Some of
these improvements can come from improving growth strategies and engineering, as discussed
previously, but improvements can also come from optimizing the use of the entire organism.
Although the final price of a barrel of algae oil when production goes to large scale is difficult to
extrapolate from the present small production facilities, system improvements will certainly
bring costs down. Figure 4 illustrates our estimates of the relative impacts of technological
improvements on the economic viability of algae biofuels. Most analysts do not predict full
parity with petroleum in the near future. More likely, the initial selling point of algal fuels will be
approximately twofold higher than petroleum, but the environmental costs will be substantially
lower than our current strategy of depending on fossil fuels.

Fig. 4. Additive effects of improvements on algal cost[1]

5
 In this model, our starting strain, with characteristics in brackets, has a break-even price of
US$21.33. Significant improvements in all factors (blue) or exceptional improvements in all
factors (pink) have break-even prices of US$4.23 or US$1.58 before co-products are considered.
Our model consists of seven major factors: 1) annual maintenance costs: this includes personnel,
land taxes, fertilizer costs, upkeep, water and power; 2) harvesting costs: this cost is incurred
every time algae reaches harvesting stage which is a function of growth rate, and maximum
growth density (it includes costs for water extraction, oil extraction and oil transport from
harvest site to sales destination); 3) pond depth: this is how deep the ponds can be made while
the algae still maintain optimal growth rates. The remaining four are characteristics of the algae;
4) lipid content; 5) growth rate; 6) maximum growth density; 7) marketable co-products
produced by the algae. Based on our analysis, improvements in all seven factors are required for
algae to come close to competitive with petroleum. Maximizing the last four characteristics
require good crop protection, stressing the importance of developments in this field before the
large capital investment required to build full scale algae biofuel farms. It is important to note
this economic model does not include the initial capital costs to build the initial farms.

2. The energy and carbon balance of microalgae production

If micro-algae are to be a viable feedstock for biofuel production the overall energy (and
carbon balance) must be favorable. There have been many attempts to estimate this for large
scale micro-algae biofuels production using life cycle assessment (LCA) methods to describe and
quantify inputs
and emissions from the production process.
LCA studies describe eleven production concepts, but comparison is impeded by the use of
inconsistent boundaries, functional units and assumptions. To compare the results on a consistent
basis a simple meta-model was developed. This model was used to standardize units and
normalize the process description to a consistent system boundary comprising the cultivation,
harvesting and oil extraction stage.
Production systems were compared in terms of the net energy ratio (NER) of biomass
production. NER is defined here as the sum of the energy used for cultivation, harvesting and
drying, divided by the energy content of the dry biomass [6]. Provided the NER is less than
unity, the process produces more energy than it consumes. The results of this comparison are
shown in fig. 5. Of the eight raceway pond concepts it can be seen that six have an NER less than
1. This suggests that a positive energy balance may be achievable for these systems, although
this benefit is marginal in the normalized case. The NER of the PBR systems are all greater than
1. The best performing PBR is the flat-plate system which outperforms the tubular PBRs as it
benefits from a large illumination surface area and low oxygen build-up.

6
Fig. 5 Net energy ratio of micro-algae biomass production: comparison of published values with
normalized values. (The NER is defined as the sum of the energy used for cultivation, harvesting
and drying, divided by the energy content of the dry biomass)[6]

The carbon dioxide emissions associated with algal biomass production were estimated by
multiplying the external energy inputs to the process by the default emissions factors described
in the EU renewable energy directive [7]. The results obtained are shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen
that the majority of emissions are associated with electricity consumption for pumping and
mixing and the provision of heat to dry the algae. Notably, emissions associated with algal
biomass production in raceway ponds are comparable with the emissions from the cultivation
and production stages of rape methyl ester biodiesel. Production in PBRs, however, demonstrates
emissions greater than conventional fossil diesel. An important caveat to this analysis is that the
carbon emissions are highly dependent on the emissions factors used for the different energy
inputs into the system (and in particular electricity) and generic factors may not be appropriate in
all situations.

7
 Fig.6. Illustrative estimates for carbon dioxide emissions from algal biomass production in
raceway ponds (The default emission factors used to estimate carbon dioxide emissions were e
diesel 83.80 g MJL1; electricity: 91 g MJL1; heat: 77 g MJL1 [7]. The emissions factor for the
embodied energy in fertiliser and for production of PVC lining (in the case of raceway ponds)
and PBR was assumed to be the same as for heat.).

3. Cost performance of algae biofuels

Cost analysis is a powerful tool that can be used to both estimate the ultimate costs of algae
biofuels and identify the process elements which contribute most to the production cost e thereby
helping focus future research and design. The limitations of algae production cost assessments
are similar to those facing life cycle assessments and include data constraints and reliance on
parameters extrapolated from lab scale analyses.
The production cost of algal biomass in an idealised raceway pond system is shown in Fig. 7.
The base case production cost is about 1.6 kg-1 to 1.8 kg-1 and the projected case cost
is about 0.3 kg-1 to 0.4 kg-1. It can also be seen that there is little difference between the low
and high availability cases (fractional differencew5%). In contrast, moving from the base
case to the projected case results in a fractional decrease in costs of w50%. For comparison, the
market price for delivered woody biomass pellets in the UK is bout 0.2 kg-1 to 0.4 kg-1[8].
Although, it should be noted that the composition of algal may be more interesting for some
applications.
The cost of CO2 in the base case has a significant impact on production cost. This is because
the open pond system has poor CO2 fixation performance. The projected case gives a much

8
reduced cost (about 0.25 kg-1). This is due to both the higher productivity assumption and the
assumption that the CO2 comes from an adjacent power plant and is free of charge.
Another source of variation between the scenarios is the fertilizer costs: in the projected
scenario we assume the cultivation system is coupled with a wastewater treatment facility, and
that nutrients are also effectively free of charge. This scenario illustrates that major gains in
productivity and efficiency are required to produce algae that could compete with conventional
fuels.

Fig.7. Illustrative costs of algal biomass production in an idealised raceway pond system[6]

The production cost of algal biomass produced in the idealized tubular PBR systems is shown
in Fig. 8. The base case cost is about 9 kg-1 to 1 kg-1 and the projected case cost is about
3.8 kg_1. All PBR scenarios are dominated by the system capital cost. The CO2 cost of the
PBR system is proportionately less important than in the raceway pond, this is partly because
the PBR system has better CO2 fixation performance, and partly because other costs e e.g. the
cost of electricity consumed are greater. In the projected case, where raw materials are
effectively free and the power consumption has been reduced relative to the base case by 90%,
the cost of biomass production is reduced (from about 9 kg-1 to about 3.8 kg-1) but is
still greater than the cost of production in raceway ponds. This scenario illustrates that dramatic
reductions in the capital cost would be required for the costs of this system to approach the
level required to service the biofuels market.

9
Fig.8. Illustrative costs of algal biomass production in an idealised tubular photobioreactor
system[6]

4. CONCLUSIONS

A positive energy balance will require technological advances and highly optimised
production systems. The mitigation of environmental impacts, and in particular water
management, presents both challenges and opportunities, many of which can only be resolved at
the local level.
Raceway pond systems demonstrate a lower cost of algal biomass production than photo-
bioreactor systems. Most of the production costs in raceway system are associated with
operation (labour, utilities and raw materials).
The cost of production in PBRs, in contrast, is dominated by the capital cost of the PBRs.
Dramatic improvements in both productivity and energy efficiency would be required to greatly
reduce the cost of biomass production.
Significant cost reductions (>50%) may be achieved if CO2, nutrients and water can be
obtained at low cost. This is a very demanding requirement, however, and it could dramatically
restrict the number of locations available.
Compared with other sources of biomass used for energy, algal biomass appears expensive e
although it has a more interesting composition.
After this general study, we can finally conclude that fuel production from algae can be cost
competitive and widely scalable and deployable in the next 710 years, but only if we continue

10
to expand our understanding of these amazing organisms as we expand our ability to engineer
them for the specific task of developing a new energy industry.

REFERENCES:

[1] M.Hannon, J. Gimpel, M.Tran, B. Rasala, and S. Mayfield, Biofuels. 2010 Sep; 1(5): 763
784.

[2] Marchetti A, Parker MS, Moccia LP, et al. Ferritin is used for iron storage in bloom-forming
marine pennate diatoms. Nature. 2009;457(7228):467470.

[3] Yildiz FH, Davies JP, Grossman AC. Characterization of sulfate transport
in Chlamydomonas reinhardtiiduring sulfur-limited and sulfur-sufficient growth. Plant
Physiol. 1994;104:981987.

[4] Maathuis FJ. Physiological functions of mineral macronutrients. Curr Opin Plant
Biol. 2009;12(3):250258.

[5] Sialve B, Bernet N, Bernard O. Anaerobic digestion of microalgae as a necessary step to

make microalgal biodiesel sustainable. Biotechnol Advances. 2009;27(4):409416.

[6] R. Slade, A.Bauen, Micro-algae cultivation for biofuels: Cost, energy balance, environmental
impacts and future prospects, Bi o m a s s and B i o e n e r gy 5 3 ( 2 0 1 3 ), 2 9-3 8.

[7] Directive 2009/28/EC. On the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and
amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.2009.04.23.
Off J EU 2009. L 140: 16e62.

[8] E4tech. Biomass prices in the heat and electricity sectors in the UK. A report for the
department of energy and climate change UK (URN 10D/546). London: E4tech (UK) Ltd..
Available from: http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/consultations/rhi/132-biomass-price-heat-
elec-e4tech.pdf; 2010.

11