1

Algae Biofuels: The Road to Commercialization

Amy T. Hoang

Gifted and Talented Research Program: Glenelg High School

GT-400-1: ​Independent Research I

E. Leila Chawkat

5/22/20
 2

Abstract

Microalgae Biofuels: The Road to Commercialization

For the past century, the detrimental effects of human activity have shown its harmful

toll. Global warming, climate change, pollution, and higher sea levels all come from substantial

amounts of excess greenhouse gases. The notorious gas, carbon dioxide (CO​2​), is produced

through the combustion of fossil fuels like coal, petroleum, and natural gas. In addition to many

other greenhouse gases, CO​2​ traps heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, warming the Earth along with

it. This leads to ice caps melting and an increase in habitat loss, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes,

flooding, and other natural disasters. Infrastructure, agriculture, the environment, and people

across the world suffer from these catastrophic natural disasters. A significant push for a

solution has led to the search for alternative fuel sources such as biofuels and renewable energy.

These types of fuels are said to produce little to no greenhouse gases, subsequently inhibiting the

effects of global warming.

Currently, there are three “generations” of biofuel feedstocks. The first generation is

made through edible feedstocks like corn, barley, sugarcane, wheat, and soybean. This type of

feedstock sparked the debate nicknamed “food vs fuel.”Gathering the feed source for this type of

biofuel was arguably “wasting” food and taking land that could benefit from agricultural use.

First-generation biofuels also pose a problem when large amounts of biofuel are needed. The

large demand would affect food supplies and the biodiversity of the land. Second-generation

biofuels seemingly resolved the issue of food “waste.” This type of biofuel uses non-edible

sources as a feedstock. This includes corn stovers (the stalks, leaves and cobs of corn plants),

wood, straw, municipal waste, and other organic waste. More fuel can be produced using feed

with high amounts of lignocellulose, dry plant matter, compared to starchy feed. However, the
 3

problem of land-use applies to second-generation biofuels. This type of feedstock does not

require nutrient-rich land. However, delegating what leftover corn stover should be used for and

how forest land should be divided, presents a large problem for policymakers and farmers alike.

In the past decade, a “new” feedstock has been heavily researched, microalgae.

Microalgae produce much more oil and therefore more fuel, than the leading feedstocks.

Growing microalgae would not compete with cropland and the mass production of this biomass

would not risk harming the biodiversity of land. The production of the algae would capture

carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and would not impact the environment as

much as other generations of feedstocks. However, this feedstock is fairly immature. Being a

recently focused biofuel, the production process can still be vastly improved. Currently, the

formation of the microalgae biofuel is too expensive to manufacture and sell to the mass public.

The process to limit climate change includes finding alternatives to fossil fuels and cutting down

on greenhouse gases. Microalgae biofuels should be mass-produced to counter the harmful

effects of fossil fuels; however, their production is limited because of their high production cost.

Literature Review

I.) Cultivation

a.) Wastewater

Traditional microalgae cultivation requires tons of freshwater and expensive fertilizer.

Both the manufacturing of fertilizer and the gathering of extensive amounts of water leave a

massive environmental footprint in the production process. Wastewater has been recognized as

a possible solution to provide nutrients and water for the biomass. However, the type of

wastewater along with the conversion process affects the quality of fuel and the amount.

Dongyan’s study analyzes 3 varied types of wastewater; manure, centrate, and municipal
 4

wastewater (MW), along with freshwater as a baseline comparison. These were then tested with

different kinds of conversion processes; microwave pyrolysis, direct combustion, hydrothermal

liquefaction (HTL), and lipid extraction. It was found that centrate outperformed the other

wastewaters, producing the highest energy productivity and the least impactful to the

environment. Centrate is less abundant than MW or manure in the United States, producing

only 4 million liters of centrate compared to the sizable 700 million liters of MW [7]. The total

biomass yield of centrate nearly doubled the amount from MW, this is because centrate contains

a “ high nutrient concentration in centrate and a more favorable molecular ratio of C:N:P

(carbon: nitrogen: phosphorus) for algae growth [7].” All 3 wastewaters released smaller

amounts of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), fossil fuel use, eutrophication, and water use.

b.) Polyculture

Typically research is conducted on the optimal algae strain that will produce the most

lipids and the best quality fuel. Rarely is polyculture, the cultivation of multiple species of algae,

presented as a possible solution. Polyculture harvesting mimics the biodiversity of natural

niches of algae and how communities of algae would be discovered [8]. This allows for

productive growth and ecosystem stability. A diverse collection of algae species could adapt

easier to fluctuating conditions like a change in climate or temperature, and amounts of light,

nutrients, or water [8]. Pathogens often are selective of what groups of algae to infect [8]. If

there happens to be a vacancy in the niche as a result of a species infection, other groups of algae

quickly multiply. This prevents the loss of biomass and can create a stable crop [8]. A vast array

of algae species also allows for a collection of species with beneficial traits, cutting out the need

for genetic modification of those traits. It is debated whether diversity truly results in a more

stable crop. Unless in beneficial circumstances the guarantee of total stability is false. Increased
 5

protection from algae loss and containment defense can be done through the use of PBR’s and

polyculture algae.

c.) Modification of Algae Antenna

On its own, photosynthesis has proven itself ineffective, having a maximum efficiency of

8-10% [9]. This is due to the lack of solar absorption and the inefficient energy transfer that

causes a loss of photon energy [9]. Within the algae cell, remains an antenna that harvests light

and converts it into chemical energy. Over time these light harvesting complexes (LHC) have

adapted to natural mass cultures which have low light levels and cause competition between

organisms. As a result the LHC increased in size [10]. However these LHC’s have been proven to

be more effective at light harvesting at a smaller size. This is because “natural water columns

appear to select for cell types with small antenna sizes, potentially as a means of minimising

oversaturation [9].” Oversaturation causes an increase in production of a reactive form of

oxygen that consequently diminishes the quality of the algae and losses the solar energy

collected. An optimization in LHC functions would supply more energy and therefore growth to

the algae.

d.) Cultivation Systems

One of the most debated techniques of the algae community is the argument between the

uses of raceway open pond systems or enclosed photobioreactor systems. Open pond systems

are inexpensive and simple to use [6]. Set in large, deep tracks, the algae and water mixture are

paddled and pumped with CO​2​. These large outdoor tubs remain uncovered , taking up land not

normally used for agriculture. PBR’s are made of tubes made of transparent material, usually

shelved or stacked on top of each other to allow light to penetrate. Like the open pond, inorganic

carbon is pumped into the tubes. Open pond systems allow for lower operating costs, easier

scale increase, and easier cooling abilities [1]. However, this system holds a large risk for
 6

contamination, “broth” loss/evaporation, lack of light penetration, and loss of CO​2​ [1,6,9].

Compared to PBR’s the production rates are unpredictable and the conditions are difficult to

control. This system requires large amounts of land and more tedious processes to harvest the

algae. PBR’s, specifically flat panel PBR’s “ support higher growth densities and promote higher

photosynthetic efficiency [6]. This type of photobioreactor is noted as the best cost to production

ratio [2]. PBR’s as a whole possess controllable conditions that limit contaminations, land use,

and CO​2​ loss. The end result is a refined and cheaper biomass to harvest. However, PBR’s do not

come cheap. Holding a generous price the upkeep and construction cost these systems are

evaded by most researchers and fuel companies. Along with the cost, the “volume of the reactor

is much less than that of raceway ponds, making it difficult to scale up [for larger production]”

[10]. Adding to the cost, the cooling of the broth inside requires extra electrical cost [4]. These

pros and cons fuel the debate encircling these systems. Nonetheless, on a commercial-grade

scale, PBR’s stand out as the more reliable and sustainable system for fungible fuel.

II.) Harvest

a.) Flocculation (hexane?)

The process of harvesting accounts for a large portion of the energy consumption in the

manufacturing of microalgae biofuels [10]. When determining what harvesting technique to use,

it depends upon the species and how it behaves in water. Some species of algae float after being

circulated in the cultivation process and some sink. Sinking algae would require dissolved air

floatation, this technique involves pumping air into the solution to create a “foam” of collected

algae. As for floating algae, flocculation is a preferred technique among many companies. This

approach of harvest requires chemical flocculants that bridge between individual cells. In an

interview conducted with Lieve Laurens, a ​Senior Scientist and Algae Program Manager at the
 7

Bioenergy Center of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), she explains the

effects of flocculants on the density of algae cells. The assumed single celled algae are

negatively charged and well dispersed within the solution. When chemical flocculants such as

aluminum chloride, aluminum sulfate, and hexane are introduced, these positively charged

molecules attach the negatively charged cells to their surface. Hence increasing their density,

causing them to sink. This makes easier concentration of algae, easier harvesting and a potential

decrease in water extraction cost [4].

b.) Solar drying

In a study testing different drying methods of an algae biomass, the method of solar

drying prevailed [3]. Three types of drying techniques were compared, freeze drying, oven

drying and solar drying. These were then compared to two different types of extraction

methods, microwave and sonication. It was found that there was no significant difference

between the techniques of drying in lipid yield following extraction. In both microwave and

sonication all three methods achieved similar results. Solar drying took the longest out of the

three however was the most cost, energy effective, and “the economical feasibility...makes it a

preferred choice for a large scale production [3].” Solar drying requires large amounts of land

that may become a problem with issues of land use, although with the amount of unused by the

production of the fuel could be used for solar drying. The use of solar drying paired with a

microwave cell distribution technique would increase lipid production.

III.) Extract

a.) Fast microwave-assisted pyrolysis (fMAP)​ #7

“depend on numerous factors including algal species and growth status, extraction components
and harvest process operations...physical or chemical extractions” #9
 8

“Higher oil yield with superior quality and reduced extraction time.

“Filtration or centrifugation is necessary to remove the solid residue; Efficiency of

microwaves can be very poor when either the target compounds or the solvents are non-polar,

or volatile. (very specific)” 9 (look at table 1)

“Microwave cell disruption resulted in a higher lipid yield...an easy and economical sun

drying method with an efficient microwave cell disruption technique could be possible

processing steps in further scaling up of biodiesel synthesis” 10

“Microwave assisted extraction of sun dried biomass yielded 28.33% lipid g1 DCW, as

compared to 18.9% lipid g1 DCW achieved by sonication assisted extraction”

b.) HTL but talk about processes

“Hydrothermal Liquefaction (HTL) and is receiving attention as a way to scale up production

of an algae-based biocrude oil.”#5

Data Collection

I.) Data Chart:

Lead Author Topic/Purpose of Study Description

Kyle Sander A long-term sustainability and life cycle A well-to-pump study/ analysis that

analysis (LCA) of the algae made for biofuels. evaluated algae biofuel technology using

wastewater as its water source.

Chunhua Xin To analyze the economic stability of different Techno-economic analysis (TEA) that

microalgae-based biofuel production closely examined every part of the

systems. production process of microalgae-based

biofuels.

Victoria H. Optimizing the photosynthetic capabilities of A study that analyzes the potential

Work microalgae. optimization of the systems within the

algae

Raphael Slade Examines the production of biofuel and Evaluates the sustainability of micro-algae

analyzes what would allow for a sustainable biofuel production processes.

and economically feasible future.

II.) Rationale:

To determine the best production processes for the commercialization of algae biofuels,

quantitative data presenting the most cost-effective, fungible, and sustainable techniques are

necessary. Collecting data by testing these processes would require large amounts of time and

money for the equipment and trial and error testing. An alternative to this kind of data

collection would be a meta-analysis. This would allow multiple studies evaluating larger

umbrellas of the microalgae growth, harvest, separation/extraction, and biofuel conversion. A

more accurate process could be selected and therefore create a system with the best techniques

for a commercially feasible algae biofuel. This can be measured quantitatively through the

inspection of the competitiveness of the processes put in place. However, without a large bias,

estimated data cannot show the product effectively.

III.) Analysis:

After analyzing the 4 studies centered around the improvement of algae biofuel

production the use of photobioreactors (PBR’s), wastewater, fast microwave-assisted pyrolysis,

and genetic modification of the microalgae’s antenna are necessary for the most effective

production process. The argument about the use of raceway ponds or photobioreactors (PBR’s)

narrows down to what the preferred end result would be. Raceway ponds are a cheaper option

and produce a favorable energy balance. Being that they hold a lesser price. However, they are

more susceptible to evaporative water loss. This would require fresh water to replenish the

algae slurry and would up the price of production and the environmental footprint. PBR’s use

less land. One study explained a multi-level PBR where wastewater was pumped through the

top layer and streamed through the following layers, cycling through. The downside to PBR’s

are their high initial cost, including upkeep. This causes a change in the economic feasibility of

the PBR’s on a large industrial scale. Although not requiring as much maintenance as an open

pond, PBR’s come with a hefty price, taking 47.7% of the total cost of production.

A large possible advancement in algae growth and cost reduction is wastewater use.

Assuming it contains the necessary nutrients for algae to grow in, aside from carbon dioxide.

Wastewater use cuts down on the use of freshwater and pricey fertilizer. It also allows for

fertilizer to be made as the result of the leftover, dried biomass, adding to the profit. However,

once the wastewater is used to grow the algae biomass it cannot be reused, limiting the risk of

disease and crop infection. Fast microwave-assisted pyrolysis (fMAP) is a promising lipid

extraction process, supposedly able to not only extract lipids from the algal biomass but also

the algae's carbohydrates; this technique could significantly increase the fuel conversion rate

of algae biofuels. The final surprising discovery from the 4 studies was the fact that through

photosynthesis, more than 90% of photon or light energy is given off as heat or fluorescence.

The process uses a small estimated 6% of light energy. By truncating the microalgae’s antenna,

supposedly more light can be absorbed by the plant resulting in a faster photosynthesis

process, cutting down on growth time.

IV.) Conclusion:

These techniques gathered from the 4 studies could possibly be the answer to

commercializing microalgae biofuels. But cutting down on production cost, producing larger

amounts of oils, and cutting down on time, algae biofuels may be able to keep up with today's

energy demands. These not only help cut down on greenhouse gas emissions but limit their

environmental footprint. Producing algae biofuels would hopefully solve the problems and

debates on current biofuels, but also provide an alternative fuel source for fossil fuels and limit

emissions.

Sources:

Sander, K., & Murthy, G. S. (2010). Life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel. ​The International

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,​ 1​ 5​(7), 704-714.

Slade, R., & Bauen, A. (2013). Micro-algae cultivation for biofuels: cost, energy balance,

environmental impacts and future prospects. ​Biomass and bioenergy,​ ​53,​ 29-38.

Work, V. H., D’Adamo, S., Radakovits, R., Jinkerson, R. E., & Posewitz, M. C. (2012). Improving

photosynthesis and metabolic networks for the competitive production of

phototroph-derived biofuels. ​Current opinion in biotechnology,​ ​23​(3), 290-297.

Xin, C., Addy, M. M., Zhao, J., Cheng, Y., Cheng, S., Mu, D., ... & Ruan, R. (2016).

Comprehensive techno-economic analysis of wastewater-based algal biofuel production:

A case study. ​Bioresource technology​, ​211​, 584-593.

Conclusion
 12

Reference Page

[1] ​Aratboni, H. A., Rafiei, N., Garcia-Granados, R., Alemzadeh, A., & Morones-Ramírez, J. R. (2019).

Biomass and lipid induction strategies in microalgae for biofuel production and other

applications. ​Microbial cell factories,​ ​18​(1), 178.

[2] Ferraro, A. (2017, December). Microalgae as source of biofuel: technology and prospective. In

Journal of Physics: Conference Series​ (Vol. 939, No. 1, p. 012038). IOP Publishing.

[3] Guldhe, A., Singh, B., Rawat, I., Ramluckan, K., & Bux, F. (2014). Efficacy of drying and cell

disruption techniques on lipid recovery from microalgae for biodiesel production. ​Fuel,​ ​128,​

46-52.

[4] ​Hannon, M., Gimpel, J., Tran, M., Rasala, B., & Mayfield, S. (2010). Biofuels from algae: challenges

and potential. ​Biofuels,​ ​1(​ 5), 763–784. https://doi.org/10.4155/bfs.10.44

[5] Laurens, L. M., Chen-Glasser, M., & McMillan, J. D. (2017). A perspective on renewable bioenergy

from photosynthetic algae as a feedstock for biofuels and bioproducts. ​Algal Research​, ​24​,

261-264. ​https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2017.04.002

[6] Medipally, S. R., Yusoff, F. M., Banerjee, S., & Shariff, M. (2015). Microalgae as sustainable

renewable energy feedstock for biofuel production. ​BioMed Research International​. Retrieved from

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A458161789/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=69cb3649

[7] Mu, D., Min, M., Krohn, B., Mullins, K. A., Ruan, R., & Hill, J. (2014). Life cycle environmental

impacts of wastewater-based algal biofuels. ​Environmental science & technology​, ​48(​ 19),

11696-11704.

[8] Newby, D. T., Mathews, T. J., Pate, R. C., Huesemann, M. H., Lane, T. W., Wahlen, B. D., ... &

Shurin, J. B. (2016). Assessing the potential of polyculture to accelerate algal biofuel production.

Algal Research,​ ​19,​ 264-277.

[9] Stephenson, P. G., Moore, C. M., Terry, M. J., Zubkov, M. V., & Bibby, T. S. (2011). Improving

photosynthesis for algal biofuels: toward a green revolution. ​Trends in Biotechnology,​ ​29​(12),

615-623.

[10] ​Shin, W. S., Lee, B., Kang, N. K., Kim, Y. U., Jeong, W. J., Kwon, J. H., ... & Chang, Y. K. (2017).

Complementation of a mutation in CpSRP43 causing partial truncation of light-harvesting

chlorophyll antenna in Chlorella vulgaris. ​Scientific reports​, ​7(​ 1), 1-11.

[11] Su, Y., Song, K., Zhang, P., Su, Y., Cheng, J., & Chen, X. (2017). Progress of microalgae biofuel’s

commercialization​. ​Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,​ ​74​, 402-411.