An analysis of energy consumption for algal biodiesel production:

Comparing the literature with current estimates

Adam J. Dassey, Steven G. Hall, Chandra S. Theegala
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Louisiana State University & LSU AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 April 2013
Received in revised form 15 December 2013
Accepted 19 December 2013
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Algal biodiesel
Life cycle analysis
Energy balance
Algae have signicant potential compared to other biomass feedstocks to supplement current transportation
fossil fuel usage. To determine the acceptability of algal biodiesel as a replacement for petroleum, a life cycle
analysis (LCA) with parameters of aerial productivity, culturing, CO
2
mitigation, water use, nutrient loading, bio-
mass harvesting, lipid extraction, and energy conversion was explored onalgae production inLouisiana. Highand
lowenergy estimates found in several published LCAs were compared to current realistic estimates and analyses
completed by the authors. Considering a systemwith an aerial biomass productivity of 15 g/m
2
/day and cell lipid
concentration of 20%, the energy inputs exceeded the outputs from biodiesel production by 53% under the most
ideal conditions. However, slight increases in biomass productivities and lipid contents are anticipated to tilt the
overall energy balance more favorably. Considering the current conservative estimates (for biomass productivity
and lipid content), incorporation of value added processes such as wastewater treatment and biogas production
from residual biomass, could improve the sustainability of the system, allowing it to potentially achieve a 13.2%
energy surplus.
2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.
1. Introduction
Increases in energy prices and national mandates to reduce the de-
pendence on foreign oil have brought renewed interests in alternative
energy. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established
a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring transportation fuel
sold in the U.S. to contain a minimumof 36 billion gallons of renewable
fuels, including advanced and cellulosic biofuels and biomass-based
diesel, by 2022 [1]. One challenge for renewable transportation fuels,
however, has been the development of a suitable biomass feedstock.
The aerial yields and sustainability of traditional food crops such as
corn, sugarcane, and soybean have made them unlikely candidates as
biofuel feedstocks [2]. Since 7080% of the total biofuel production
costs are in the raw materials, proper feedstock selection is crucial
[3,4]. Microalgae has shown potential as a sustainable feedstock for
reasons such as: i) predicted high per-acre productivity, ii) based on
non-food resources, iii) use of otherwise non-productive, non-arable
land, iv) utilization of a wide variety of water sources (fresh, brackish,
saline, and wastewater), v) mitigation of greenhouse gases released
into the atmosphere, and vi) production of both biofuels and valuable
co-products [5].
To assess the sustainability of algal biodiesel as a replacement for
petroleum, a life cycle analysis (LCA) was explored on algae production
in Louisiana, which was determined to be one of the top three states for
algae production by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory [6].
Louisiana's transportation sector accounted for 17.1% of its total energy
usage including 52.9 million barrels of motor gasoline and 33.6 million
barrels of distillate fuels [7]. The energy contained within algal biodiesel
is approximately 37.8 MJ/kg [8] as compared to the 43 MJ/kg found in
conventional fuels. Therefore, 87.4 million barrels of algal biofuel
would be needed to replace current transportation fuels in Louisiana.
The design of an algal conversion system requires the combination
and optimization of several factors such as biomass culturing, growth
management, transport to conversion plants, drying, product separa-
tion, recycling, waste management, transport of saleable products and
marketing [2,9]. Major process engineering accounts for the partial
costs associated with biomass culturing, harvesting, oil extraction and
oil transesterication [10]. For the current analysis, a combination of
estimates, projections and experiments (conducted at LSU) were
assembled and categorized accordingly in the following sections.
2. Estimated culture parameters
2.1. Theoretical maximum estimates
Algae growth rates, like those of land based plants, are dependent on
their photosynthetic efciency. Photosynthetic efciency (PE) is the
fraction of light energy that can be xed as chemical energy for biomass
production of an algal cell. Oxidative photosynthesis, however, remains
somewhat inefcient at converting solar energy to chemical energy and
ultimately biomass [11]. The maximum PE that can be achieved is only
10% due to photoinhibition [12], because the light capturing antennae
Algal Research xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 225 578 1060; fax: +1 225 578 3492.
E-mail address: ctheegala@agcenter.lsu.edu (C.S. Theegala).
ALGAL-00102; No of Pages 7
2211-9264/$ see front matter 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.12.006
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Algal Research
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ al gal
Please cite this article as: A.J. Dassey, et al., An analysis of energy consumption for algal biodiesel production: Comparing the literature with
current estimates, Algal Res. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.12.006
of algae harvest one photon every 0.5 ms, but the dark phase reaction
centers can only process one photon every 5 ms.
Since average solar radiation in the state of Louisiana is
4.6 kWh/m
2
/day, the maximum theoretical radiation that can be
used by algae for biomass production over the course of a year is:
4:6
kWh
m
2
day

3:6 MJ
kWh

365 days
year
10%
604 MJ
m
2
year
:
Under phototrophic cultivation, there is a large variation in the lipid
content of microalgae, ranging from5%to 68%, depending on the type of
microalgae species [13]. The most common microalgae (Chlorella,
Dunaillea, Isochrysis, Nannochloris, Nannochloropsis, Neochloris, Nitzschia,
Phaeodactylum, and Porphyridium) possess oil levels between 20 and
50% (w/w) and exhibit reasonable productivities in laboratory culture
testing [14]. Assuming that a nonspecic algal species consists of 20%
lipids (triglycerides (lower heating value) LHV = 37.5 MJ/kg) and the
remaining 80% to be carbohydrates and proteins (LHV = 18 MJ/kg),
the maximum theoretical biomass production is:
604 MJ
m
2
year

kg
21:9 MJ

4047 m
2
acre

ton
1000 kg

111 mt
acre year
:
Where 21.9 MJ/kg is the weighted average of LHV for lipids, carbo-
hydrates and proteins. Assuming the algal oil density to be 864 g/L,
which falls within the range determined by Kumar and coworkers
[15] for various species (857892 g/L), the oil production per acre is:
111 mt
acre year

1000 kg
ton
20% lipids
L
0:864 kg

25; 694 L
acre year
:
This estimated value is the theoretical upper limit of PE, as it does
not account for other factors that could decrease efciency and conver-
sion (e.g. photosaturation, photorespiration, and poor light absorption)
[16]. Due to such impacting factors, most autotrophic organisms attain
PE levels typically between 1% and 3% [17]. Therefore, assuming a PE
of 2%, algal production can realistically be expected to produce
5170 L/acre/year. To supply Louisiana's energy demand of 87.4 million
barrels of biofuel for transportation purposes, the state would require
710,153 acres of algal ponds. This is less than 2.2% of the total land sur-
face area in Louisiana. In comparison of land allocation, Louisiana farms
approximately 200,000 acres of crawsh ponds during the year [18].
2.2. Aerial productivity
Most commercial microalgae cultivation systems are carried out in
open pond systems using solar energy as the light source, which is the
cheapest light source available [12,13]. High rate ponds used in com-
mercial algae production are typically operated at 20 to 40 cm (6 to
16 in. liquid depth, mixed with paddlewheels and up to about 0.5 ha
in size [19]. For this manuscript, a hypothetical 1 acre, 40 cm deep
oval raceway was assumed to culture a nonspecic algal species with
20% lipid content and an aerial productivity of 15 g/m
2
/day.
2.3. Mixing
In algal cultivation, the productivity of algal systems, cost of reactor
construction and operation are dependent on the mixing system being
able to maintain typical culture ow velocities of 814 cm/s [20], with
maximum velocities of 2025 cm/s rarely being exceeded [19]. Mixing
by traditional paddlewheel is the most common method of circulation,
but Collet et al. [21] indicated this to be the most energy intensive in
algae cultivation, consuming 0.1 kWh/m
3
of culture. Progresses in elec-
tricity consumption during cultivation can be achieved by decreasing
the mixing costs and circulation between different production steps
[9]. To accomplish this, the minimum energy required to maintain
mixing velocities was determined through the headloss (h
L
) experi-
enced in the bends (h
b
), straightaways (h
s
) and carbonation sump
(h
c
) [19].
h
L
2h
b
2h
s
h
c
h
L
2
K
b
v
2
2g
!
2 v
2
n
2
L
R
4
3

K
c
v
2
2g
!
Where
K =kinetic loss coefcient
v = mean velocity (m/s)
g = acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s
2
)
n = roughness factor (n = 0.018 for clay channels)
L = channel length (m)
R = channel hydraulic radius (m)
h
L
2
2 0:25
m
s

2
2 9:81
m
s
2

!
2 0:25
m
s

2
0:018
2
109 m
0:39 m
4
3
!
The power (P) to maintain a velocity of 0.25 m/s in a 1-acre raceway,
is therefore:
P Qh 9:78
kN
m
3

1:55
m
3
s

:0409 m 0:620 kW:
Where
= specic weight of water (kN/m
3
)
Q =owrate at velocity, v (m
3
/s)
h = headloss (m).
Assuming the efciency of the mixing device, whether paddle wheel
or air lift, to be 40% [22], the energy required to mix a 1645 m
3
pond at
0.25 m/s for 24 h fell within the variable range of other authors
(Table 1).
2.4. Carbon dioxide
Microalgae have attracted a great deal of attention for CO
2
xation
and biofuel production because they can convert CO
2
into biomass via
photosynthesis at much higher rates than conventional biofuel crops
[25]. Many reports on the potential and bio-economics of algal biomass
to generated fuels are based on the premise that CO
2
would be utilized
from fossil fuelled power stations or other industrial sources of CO
2
[9].
The specic growth rate of Nannochloropsis increased 58% when 15%
CO
2
(typical concentration of ue gases) was used for aeration [26].
Additionally, combustionproducts suchas NOx or SOx canbe effectively
used as nutrients for microalgae, simplifying ue gas scrubbing for
combustions systems [27].
Algae require approximately 2 g of CO
2
for every g of biomass gener-
ated [5]. To gain a more accurate assessment of the CO
2
required to
Table 1
A comparison of the daily energy required to maintain a mixing velocity of 0.25 m/s.
Reference [21] [23] [19] [24] Current estimates
Energy (kWh/m
3
d) 0.1 .006 0.016 0.089 0.023
2 A.J. Dassey et al. / Algal Research xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Please cite this article as: A.J. Dassey, et al., An analysis of energy consumption for algal biodiesel production: Comparing the literature with
current estimates, Algal Res. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.12.006
maximize the algal growthrate, the mass of carbonina nonspecic algal
cell was determined. As seen from Williams and Laurens [28] the com-
position of an algal cell with 20% lipids can be distributed as shown in
Table 2.
With the algae's composition divided into elemental components, it
is seen that carbon accounts for approximately 52% of the cell's biomass.
According to Pate el al. [29], the ratio of carbon dioxide to algal biomass
is given by the following:
g CO
2

g algae

44 g=mol C%
1200 g=mol
:
Therefore, the amount of carbon that is required to be supplied as
CO
2
is 1.9 g/g algae. Distributing the carbon dioxide via a 1.5 m counter
ow sump ensures 95% diffusion efciency [30]. This ow can be
supplied to the 1 acre pond producing 15 g/m
2
/day as: (1) pure CO
2
(2.56 m
3
/h), (2) ue gas as 15% CO
2
(17.1 m
3
/h), or (3) atmospheric
CO
2
(6,559 m
3
/h). Because of its low concentration, however, atmo-
spheric CO
2
(~0.0387% v/v) is not sufcient to support the high
microalgal growth rates and productivities needed for full-scale biofuel
production [25,31]. Therefore, ue gas and concentrated carbon dioxide
were considered for this analysis (Table 3).
As seen in Table 3, using a 1.12 kW regenerative blower to supply
17.1 m
3
/h of industrial ue gas appeared to be the more affordable
option for supplying CO
2
provided the algal facility was co-located
with the industrial plant and the ue gas did not need additional
cleanup. However, if nosuchcarbonsource exists, thenthe compression
and transportation costs of a sevenfold higher ue gas volume would be
more costly [32,35].
Approximately 115.75 MMT of CO
2
emissions from fossil fuels in
Louisiana were produced from the state's industrial sector. By utilizing
these carbon emissions, 26% of the industrial sector CO
2
could be
recycled in algal production. At a production rate of 15 g/m
2
/d, biodiesel
and electricity produced from the algal biomass can reduce carbon
dioxide emissions between 71 and 109 g/MJ compared to ultra-low
sulfur diesel because of the photosynthetically produced biomass and
the displacement of petroleum and its coproducts [30,36].
2.5. Water
Managing freshwater use is critical to maintain a positive energy
balance in algal cultivation. Open pond systems require a wide range
of water (32656 L/L oil) when considering evaporation, process
water, and biodiesel production [37]. By recycling the harvest water
the total water usage was reduced by 84% for every kg of biodiesel
generated [38]. However, evaporation is the most difcult water param-
eter to address in open pond systems. The most suitable location for
algae production on the basis of land area is typically least suitable on
the basis of water consumption due to evaporation [39]. The projected
consumptive water loss from evaporation could fall into the range of
908 to 2271 L of water for each L of algal oil produced [29]. Algal pro-
ducers must plan for water recycling and evaporation control to ensure
efcient energy and water usage within their systems [40] (Table 4).
Based on the evaporation rates determined by Fontenot [41], the
current potential water loss is 13.3 m
3
per day for a 1 acre pond. Over
the past 5 years, the average rainfall in Louisiana has been 55.5 in
(0.39 cm/day) [42], whichcould potentially offset all evaporative losses.
Regardless of evaporation, algal facilities can expect water losses of 4 to
124 L for every kg biomass due to blow down from other operational
and downstream processes [8,33]. The energy requirements to move
this water were estimated at 0.045 kWh/m
3
as seen in wastewater
treatment plants [43]. While some of these losses may prove detrimen-
tal to facilities in areas such as Arizona, Louisiana's lower evaporation
rates, higher rainfall rates and easy access to surrounding natural
water sources could potentially withstand the resource exhaustion.
2.6. Nutrients
In comparison to conventional energetic crops, high photosynthetic
yields of microalgae signicantly reduce land and pesticide use but not
fertilizer needs [8]. Using fertilizer to culture microalgae consumed 61%
of operating costs, requiring 0.227 kWh/kg of biomass [44]. In some
instances, nutrients added as fresh chemicals to the pond produced an
overall negative energy balance [45]. Nutrient needs are a signicant
energy barrier for algal culturing, and an accurate assessment is needed
for efcient use.
Previously, the amount of carbon in the algal cell (52% w/w) was
determined for the CO
2
required for maximumbiomass production. As-
suming Redelds molar ratio for marine phytoplankton (C
106
N
16
P
1
) is
similar for microalgae and converting it to mass basis (C
1272
N
224
P
31
),
it is possible to determine the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus
needed for algal cultivation.
N
224 g 52%
1272 g
9:16%:
P
31 g 52%
1272 g
1:27%:
Table 2
The elemental composition of an algal cell with 20% lipid content.
Elemental components Percent biomass (%) C (g) H (g) O (g) N (g) S (g) P (g)
Lipids C
1
H
1.83
O
0.17
20 2.4 0.37 0.54
Proteins C
1
H
1.56
O
0.3
N
0.26
S
0.006
45 5.4 0.70 2.16 1.64 0.09
Polysaccharide C
1
H
1.67
O
0.83
30 3.6 0.50 3.98
Nucleic acid C
1
H
1.23
O
0.74
N
0.40
P
0.11
5 0.6 0.06 0.59 0.28 0.08
Total 100 12 1.63 7.27 1.92 0.09 0.08
Percent (as mass) 52 7.09 31.6 8.35 0.39 0.35
Table 3
A comparison of the CO
2
and energy requirements for algal cultivation.
Reference [8] [21] [32] [33] [30] Current estimates
Growth rate (g/m
2
/day) 25 25 45 25 30 15
CO
2
(kg/kg algae) 2.59 1.172 2.17 1.11 1.69 1.9
CO
2
(%) 15 15 100 100 15 100 15 100
Energy (kWh/m
3
CO
2
) 0.044
a
0.049
a
0.065 0.99 0.066
b
1.28
c
a
Values based on Kadam [32] for ue gas with 15% CO
2
.
b
1.5 HP Sweetwater regenerative blower capable of 68 m
3
/h at 1.65 m water depth.
c
Cost ($58/ton) of post combustion captured CO
2
from coal red power plant [34].
3 A.J. Dassey et al. / Algal Research xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Please cite this article as: A.J. Dassey, et al., An analysis of energy consumption for algal biodiesel production: Comparing the literature with
current estimates, Algal Res. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.12.006
These percentages were converted to g of nutrients/kg of biomass
and compared to the estimates of the following authors (Table 5).
While the current values for nutrient requirements were high com-
pared to most of the published values, the estimates still fell within a
very variable range of values presented by other authors. The true im-
pact of nutrients on biomass production can be seen when comparing
the costs of the fertilizers in Table 6.
While fertilizing with ammonia and diammonium phosphate could
strain the energy balance, continuously supplying 100% of the required
nutrients was not expected in most applications. When harvest water
was recycled, nitrogen and phosphate usage decreased by 55% to pro-
duce 1 kg of biodiesel [38]. Alternatively, if the used biomass is brought
to an anaerobic digester, ~90% of nutrients should fundamentally be
recovered [19]. Frank et al. suggested replacing anaerobic digestion
with catalytic hydrothermal gasication for 95% recovery of nutrients,
where nitrogen is in a sterile water phase as opposed to a contaminated
supernatant [47]. The degree of nutrient recycle hadone of the strongest
impacts on the cost analysis [33].
An alternative option to nutrient addition would be to utilize the
wastewater efuent from various treatment facilities. Microalgae
ponds used for secondary or tertiary treatment of domestic wastewater
would bring advantages such as cost effectiveness, low energy require-
ments, reductions in sludge formation and pollutants discharged into
the environment, greenhouse gas mitigation, and the production of use-
ful microalgal biomass [25,48,49]. Small-scale decentralizedwastewater
treatment could also allow water reuse onsite and reduce the need for
transportation of hazardous wastes [50]. Using an algal system to treat
wastewater for total nitrogen and phosphorus resulted in energy offsets
of 0.126 kWh/m
3
[23]. Jiang et al. [26] even showed improved biomass
production by 32% over standard f/2 media when a 50% mixture of mu-
nicipal wastewater and seawater were used to culture Nannochloropsis.
Despite the readily available resources for culturing microalgae in
Louisiana, biomass harvesting remains a serious challenge to practical
production of algal biodiesel.
3. Experimental data-based culture parameters
3.1. Harvesting
Given the relatively low biomass concentration in microalgal culti-
vation systems (b500 mg/L), marginal density difference with culture
water (average ~1020 kg/m3), and the small size of microalgal cells
(5 to 20 m in diameter), costs and energy consumption for biomass
harvesting are signicant concerns that need to be addressed properly
[25,51,52]. Depending on species, cell density, and culture conditions,
harvesting algal biomass has been estimated to contribute 2030% to
the production cost [53,54]. An efcient algal harvesting process should
be applicable for all kinds of algal species, yield a product with a high
dry weight percentage, and require minimum investment, energy, and
maintenance [55]. This suitable harvesting strategy may involve one
or more steps and be achieved in several physical, chemical, or biologi-
cal ways, in order to perform the desired solidliquid separation [56].
Most harvesting systems will employ a 2-stage dewatering process,
where stage 1 increases the algae concentration from 0.01% mass to
12% mass and stage 2 increases the nal concentration to ~20%
biomass (Table 7).
The current harvesting strategy processed 4 L/min of 140 mg/L algal
culture though an electrocoagulation reactor with 10 perforated iron
plates for charge neutralization. After subsequent agitation, a dissolved
air otation unit operating at 689 kPa and 10% recycle ow increased
the initial concentration to over 35 g/L as a oated algal lm. The oated
biomass received nal dewatering by centrifugation to produce an algal
paste of approximately 200 g/L concentration. Accounting for anincrease
in scale for an algal facility, it was anticipated that the three stages would
consume 0.554 kW/kg, 0.307 kWh/kg, and 0.272 kWh/kg of harvested
biomass respectively at 76% harvest efciency. Improving the harvesting
efciency further was not recommended for it would not justify the
greater energy requirements. This correlates to the ndings fromDassey
and Theegala [57], which suggested sacricing harvesting efciency for
lower operating costs as the preferred strategy. Data from this prior
work is used as the basis for computing the current harvesting energy
requirement in Table 7.
Despite requiring a harvest energy (H
E
, kWh/kg) that was greater
than the alternative systems on a per mass basis, the proposed process
was comparable with the other methods when considering the volume
that was processed to dewater the required daily harvested biomass
(B
H
, g/day) of 15 g/m
2
/day from a 4047 m
2
pond.
H
E

C
O
1
C
o
C
B
H
P
D
E

kWh
day
:
This additional conversion was incorporated since the techniques in
Table 7 treated various initial concentrations (C
o
, g/L) and dewatered to
various nal concentrations (C, g/L). The energy requirements for
harvesting will naturally be higher for systems with lower biomass
concentrations and for systems that increase the biomass concentration
to a higher consistency. To account for these variations, a consistent
pond culture density (P
D
, g/m
3
) (approximately 111 mg/L) was used
to compare all harvesting strategies and their harvest efciencies (E, %
as decimal).
3.2. Lipid extraction and energy conversion
The majority of biodiesel today is produced fromanimal or plant oils
through transesterication process following lipid extraction with or
without cell disruption [58]. The lipid extraction yields vary greatly
upon the extraction techniques employed and the algal species harvest-
ed [59]. Depending on the cell wall and the nature of the product to be
obtained, either mechanical methods (cell homogenizers, bead mills,
ultrasounds, autoclave, and spray drying) or non-mechanical methods
(freezing, organic solvents, osmotic shock, enzyme extraction, thermal
liquefaction, and pressure liquid extraction) can be used for cell disrup-
tion [56,60].
Table 5
A comparison of the nutrients required to culture 1 kg of algal biomass.
Reference [21] [8] [33] [30] [36] Current estimates
Growth rate (g/m
2
/day) 25 25 25 30 25 15
Nitrogen (g/kg algae) 8.85 67.6 32.1 5.61 147 91.6
Phosphorus (g/kg algae) 2.69 14.6 7.38 0.56 20 12.7
Table 6
A comparison of the costs for nitrogen and phosphorus.
Reference [28] [33] Current Estimates
Ammonia ($/ton) 300 407 783
a
$/kg N 0.36 0.50 0.95
Diammonium phosphate ($/ton) 325 442 726
a
$/kg P 1.29 1.75 2.76
a
Values estimated from the USDA [46].
Table 4
A comparison of the water loss due to evaporation and the energy required for pumping.
Reference [8] [21] [33] [36]
a
[23] Current estimates
Evaporation (cm/day) 0.082 0.16 0.3 2.5 0.33
Pumping (kWh/m
3
) 0.05 .049 0.012 0.03 0.045
a
Includes cm of rainfall per day to account for evaporation losses.
4 A.J. Dassey et al. / Algal Research xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Please cite this article as: A.J. Dassey, et al., An analysis of energy consumption for algal biodiesel production: Comparing the literature with
current estimates, Algal Res. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.12.006
The most likely technology for algal oil recovery involves some form
of solvent extraction [5]. Solvents play an important role by lysing cell
walls to increase the extraction yield. These extraction solvents should
be cheap, easy to remove, free from toxins, insoluble in water, efcient
in dissolving targeted components, and recyclable [61]. The hexane
system has been promoted for cell lysing because the hexane and alco-
hol will readily separate into two separate phases when water is added,
thereby improving downstream separation [62]. Alternatively, hexane
could potentially be substituted with biodiesel (methyl soyate) as a
less toxic, environmentally acceptable, and biodegradable solvent for
algal lipid extraction [63]. Once the lipids have been extracted from
the algal biomass, the oils undergo transesterifcation, a multiple-step
reaction, where triglycerides are converted to digclycerides, then to
monoglycerides, and then converted to esters (biodiesel) and glycerol
[56].
Several studies were gathered to show the potential energy con-
sumption of various methods of oil recovery and biodiesel production
(Table 8). Two of these studies, however, opted to not use the algae
oil for biodiesel production but to use the biomass to produce methane
andmethanol. All these techniques were also comparedbasedonthe Fuel
Energy that was produced either from biodiesel or methane/methanol.
The fuel energy for the current estimates used a heating value of
33.6 MJ/kg oil.
The continuous owlipid extraction system (CFLES) used moderate
temperatures (80120 C) and moderate pressures (ambient to
500 psi) through the extraction cell containing the biomass to improve
the process economics of microalgal oil extraction while simplifying the
overall extraction process [65]. This method was considerably higher
than the other estimates for energy extraction, but it was considered
to be a realistic expectation for the process.
4. Shipping
Additional costs were allocated for shipping materials and products
to processing or distributing facilities. Assuming that the algal produc-
ing facility is centrally located and will complete all processes up until
the conversion and processing of algal oil, the following estimates
were used for transportation (Table 9).
5. Complete analysis
The major energy components inthe life cycle of algal biodiesel were
consolidated from various sources to compare the high and low
estimates made by other authors. These values were also compared to
the predictions and calculations of the current authors. Values for
pumping and shipping were omitted from the nal analysis because
their effects had minimal impact on the overall cost at all levels. In the
continued scenario, a 1 acre pond growing algae at a conservative rate
of 15 g/m
2
d with 20% lipids was considered (Fig. 1).
Under the best conditions, the energy consumed on a daily basis
continued to exceed the energy extracted as biodiesel. Based on energy
expended and energy that can be potentially recovered, systems with
biomass yields below 20 g/m
2
/day are unlikely to make a prot [28].
The current realistic methods consumed 347% more energy than what
was contained in the potential biodiesel. Of the ve major energy
consumers, CO
2
was the least inuential on total energy consumption,
hardly registering on the graph for current and low energy estimates.
Harvesting in general continued to be a primary obstacle under all
circumstances investigated due to the large volumes of water that are
processed for minimal product. Advances inthis area and energy extrac-
tion should be a priority, but additional improvements in the energy
balance can be found through culturing and added value to the algal
biomass.
Sturm and Lamer [23] indicated 0.126 kWh/m
3
in energy offsets
after using an algal system to treat wastewater for total nitrogen and
phosphorus. Therefore, not only is the cost for supplying fresh nutrients
eliminated, but an additional 207 kWh/day of energy is credited. This
Table 8
A comparison of potential algal extraction techniques along with experimental and recovered energies.
Lipids (%) Methods Energy consumed (kWh/kg algae) Fuel energy (kWh/kg algae) Reference
17.5 Hexane extraction transesterication 1.77 1.838 [8]
35 Unknown extraction transesterication 0.884 3.148 [28]
Anaerobic digestion methane production 0.896 2 [21]
10 Unknown extraction transesterication 0.875 0.935 [23]
50 Hexane/ethanol extraction transesterication 1.996 4.287 [36]
Methanol conversion 0.658 2.565 [44]
30 Hexane extraction transesterication 0.684 3.247 [64]
20 CFLES
a
4.416 1.867 Current estimates
a
Values estimated from Iqbal and Theegala [65].
Table 9
A comparison of expected shipping costs for crude algal oil and biodiesel.
Author [64] [36] [44] Current
Transportation (kWh/kg) 0.102
a
0.093
b
0.0722
a
0.105
0.107
b
Distance (km) 150 100 150
a
Transportation from facility to renery.
b
Transportation/distribution of nished fuel product.
Table 7
A comparison of potential harvesting techniques and costs for algal biomass.
Harvest method Efciency (%) Initial C
o
(g/L) Final C (g/L) Energy (kWh/kg algae) kWh/day Author
Centrifugation 100 1.0 200 0.338 186.3 [36]
Settle centrifuge 65
a
0.8 120 0.292 198.4 [44]
Settle centrifugation 65 0.5 50 0.235 100.1 [21]
Flocculation/pH settling belt press 90 0.5 200 0.458 139.9 [8]
Not listed 100
a
0.5 200 0.879 241.6 [28]
Flocculation DAF centrifugation 70 0.1 200 1.440 112.9 [23]
Flocculation DAF belt press 70 0.1 200 1.086 85.1 [23]
Electrocoagulation DAF centrifugation 76 0.14 200 1.133 114.5 Current estimates
a
Values were not listed so they were assumed.
5 A.J. Dassey et al. / Algal Research xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Please cite this article as: A.J. Dassey, et al., An analysis of energy consumption for algal biodiesel production: Comparing the literature with
current estimates, Algal Res. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.12.006
adjustment could potentially provide a 134% surplus in energy for the
best-case scenario and reduce the energy imbalance for the current
scenario to 32.5% (Fig. 2).
The energy imbalance could be further improved by utilizing the
algal biomass after lipid extraction. Biomass produced fromwastewater
will seldom be suitable for the production of food or even high-value
chemicals due to high-quality requirements and public acceptance.
Therefore, the best option that remains is to use the residual algal bio-
mass after oil extraction for energy production by anaerobic digestion
into biogas [50] (Fig. 3).
Biogas produced from microalgal solids, after their 30% oil content
has been removed, could provide at least 9360 MJ/t (~160 kWh/day)
[66]. Co-digesting the microalgae residues with glycerol produced
from biodiesel was observed to further methane production by more
than 50%, compared to residues digested alone [67]. Assuming that
the residual biomass could provide 160 kWh/day after only 20%oil con-
tent was removed, a 13.2% surplus in energy for the current methods
could be achieved.
6. Conclusion
Algae have signicant potential compared to other biomass feed-
stocks to supplement the current transportation fossil fuel usage.
Considering a conservative system with an aerial biomass productivity
of 15 g/m
2
/day and lipid concentration of 20%, the energy inputs
exceeded the outputs from biodiesel production under the most ideal
conditions. However, slight improvements to the biomass productivity
(17 g/m
2
/day) and lipid content (25%) could provide a positive energy
balance for the best-case scenario.
The major costs were attributed to nutrients, harvesting, and lipid
extraction. Harvesting and lipid extraction are anticipated to be the
most difcult processing steps to improve upon, but offer substantial
potential for energy savings with developing technology. Slight energy
improvements for these processes could also provide a positive energy
balance for the best-case scenario.
While these slight improvements could potentially make algal
biofuels a reality for the best-case scenario, the current technology is
less likely to produce a positive energy balance with biofuels as a singu-
lar energy provider. However, nding additional value in the algal
biomass will greatly enhance the viability of the current technology. In
this analysis, it was determined that nutrient supply through wastewa-
ter treatment combined with the use of residual biomass for methane
production could potentially bring a 13.2% energy surplus to the current
estimates. By utilizing the full value of the algal biomass that is cultured,
the likelihood of producing a biodiesel feedstock that could compete
with petroleum fuels is improved substantially.
References
[1] U.S. Department of Energy: Biomass Program, National algal biofuels technology
roadmap, 2010.
[2] V. Patil, K.Q. Tran, H.R. Giselrod, Towards sustainable production of biofuels from
microalgae, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 9 (2008) 11881195.
[3] M. Gui, K. Lee, S. Bhatia, Feasibility of edible oil vs. non-edible oil vs. waste edible oil
as biodiesel feedstock, Energy 33 (2008) 16461653.
[4] A. Ahmad, N. Yasin, C. Derek, J. Lim, Microalgae as a sustainable energy source for
biodiesel production: a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15 (2011) 584593.
[5] P.T. Pienkos, A. Darzins, The promise and challenges of microalgal-derived biofuels,
Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref. 3 (2009) 431440.
[6] R. Davis, D. Fishman, E. Frank, M. Wigmosta, A. Aden, A. Coleman, P. Pienkos, R.
Skaggs, E. Venteris, M. Wang, Renewable diesel from algal lipids: an integrated
baseline for cost, emissions, and resource potential from a harmonized model,
NREL2012. 185.
[7] U.S. Energy Information Administration, www.eia.gov 2013.
[8] L. Lardon, A. Helias, B. Sialve, J. Steyer, O. Bernard, Life-cycle assessment of biodiesel
production from microalgae, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (17) (2009) 64756481.
[9] A. Singh, S.I. Olsen, A critical reviewof biochemical conversion, sustainability and life
cycle assessment of algal biofuels, Appl. Energ. 88 (2011) 35483555.
[10] H.M. Amaro, A.C. Guedes, F.X. Malcata, Advances and perspectives in using
microalgae to produce biodiesel, Appl. Energ. 88 (2011) 34023410.
[11] P.G. Stephenson, C.M. Moore, M.J. Terry, M.V. Zubkov, T.S. Bibby, Improving photo-
synthesis for algal biofuels: toward a green revolution, Trends Biotechnol. 29 (12)
(2011) 615623.
[12] J. Beilen, Why microalgal biofuels won't save the internal combustion machine,
Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref. 4 (2010) 4152.
[13] C.Y. Chen, K.L. Yeh, R.A. Aisyah, D.J. Lee, J.S. Chang, Cultivation, photobioreactor
design and harvesting of microalgae for biodiesel production: a critical review,
Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 7181.
[14] F.X. Malcata, Microalgae and biofuels: a promising partnership, Trends Biotechnol.
29 (11) (2011) 542549.
[15] P. Kumar, M. Suseela, K. Toppo, Physico-chemical characterization of algal oil: a
potential biofuel, Asian J. Exp. Biol. Sci. 2 (3) (2011) 493497.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
High Low Current
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
W
h
/
d
a
y
)
Level of Costs
Extraction
Harvesting
CO2
Mixing
Energy from Biodiesel
and Wastewater Treatment
Fig. 2. Comparison of high, low, and current energy estimates for algal biodiesel
production and the available energy from that biodiesel plus supplemental value for
wastewater treatment.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
High Low Current
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
W
h
/
d
a
y
)
Level of Costs
Extraction
Harvesting
CO2
Mixing
Energy from Biodiesel,
Wastewater Treatment,
and Anaerobic Digestion
Fig. 3. Comparison of high, low, and current energy estimates for algal biodiesel
production and the available energy from that biodiesel plus supplemental value for
wastewater treatment and anaerobic digestion.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
High Low Current
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
W
h
/
d
a
y
)
Level of Costs
Extraction
Harvesting
Nutrients
CO2
Mixing
Energy from Biodiesel
High Low
Level of Co
Energy from Biod
Fig. 1. Comparison of high, low, and current energy estimates for algal biodiesel
production and the available energy from that biodiesel.
6 A.J. Dassey et al. / Algal Research xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Please cite this article as: A.J. Dassey, et al., An analysis of energy consumption for algal biodiesel production: Comparing the literature with
current estimates, Algal Res. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.12.006
[16] L. Brennan, P. Owende, Biofuels from microalgae a review of technologies for
production, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products, Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. 14 (2010) 557577.
[17] P.T. Vasudevan, M. Briggs, Biodiesel production current state of the art and
challenges, J. Ind. Microbiol. Biot. 35 (5) (2008) 421430.
[18] R. Bogen, L.F. Benedict, Louisiana Ideal for Aquaculture, Louisiana Agriculture. 55 (2)
(2012) 2627.
[19] T. Lundquist, I. Woertz, N. Quinn, J. Benemann, A Realistic Technology and Engineer-
ing Assessment of Algae Biofuel Production, Algae Biofuels Assessment from Energy
Biosciences Institute at U.C., Berkeley, 2010.
[20] B. Ketheesan, N. Nirmalakhandan, Development of a new airlift-driven raceway
reactor for algal cultivation, Appl. Energ. 88 (2011) 33703376.
[21] P. Collet, A. Helias, L. Lardon, M. Ras, R. Goy, J. Steyer, Life-cycle assessment of
microalgae culture coupled to biogas production, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011)
207214.
[22] J. Weissman, R. Goebel, Design and Analysis of Microalgal Open Pond Systems for
the Purpose of Producing Fuels, Solar Energy Research Institute, 1987.
[23] B. Sturm, S. Lamer, An energy evaluation of coupling nutrient removal from waste-
water with algal biomass production, Appl. Energy 88 (2011) 34993506.
[24] O. Jorquera, A. Kiperstok, E. Sales, M. Embirucu, M. Ghirardi, Comparative ener-
gy life-cycle analyses of microalgal biomass production in open ponds and
photobioreators, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) 14061413.
[25] A. Kumar, S. Ergas, X. Yuan, A. Sahu, Q. Zhang, J. Dewulf, F. Malcata, H. Langenhove,
Enhanced CO
2
xation and biofuel production via microalgae: recent developments
and future directions, Trends Biotechnol. 28 (2010) 371380.
[26] L. Jiang, S. Luo, X. Fan, Z. Yang, R. Guo, Biomass and lipid production of marine
microalgae using municipal wastewater and high concentration of CO
2
, Appl.
Energ. 88 (2011) 33363341.
[27] B. Um, Y. Kim, Review: a chance for Korea to advance algal-biodiesel technology, J.
Ind. Eng. Chem. 156 (2009) 17.
[28] P.J.B. Williams, L.M.L. Laurens, Microalgae as biodiesel and biomass feedstocks:
review and analysis of the biochemistry, energetics and economics, Energ. Environ.
Sci. 3 (2010) 554590.
[29] R. Pate, G. Klise, B. Wu, Resource demand implications for US algae biofuels produc-
tion scale-up, Appl. Energ. 88 (2011) 33773388.
[30] P. Campbell, T. Beer, D. Batten, Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from
microalgae in ponds, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 5056.
[31] R. Putt, Algae as a Biodiesel Feedstock: A Feasibility Assessment, Center for
Microbrous Materials Manufacturing, 2007.
[32] K. Kadam, Environmental implications of power generation via coal microalgae
coring, Energy 27 (2002) 905922.
[33] R. Davis, A. Aden, P. Pienkos, Techno-economic analysis of autotrophic microalgae
for fuel production, Appl. Energ. 88 (2011) 35243531.
[34] M. Finkenrath, Carbon dioxide capture from power generation status of cost and
performance, Chem. Eng. Technol. 35 (3) (2012) 482488.
[35] K. Kadam, Power plant ue gas as a source of CO
2
for microalgae cultivation:
economic impact of different process options, Energy Convers. Manag. 38 (1997)
s505s510.
[36] L. Batan, J. Quinn, B. Willson, T. Bradley, Net energy and greenhouse gas emission
evaluation of biodiesel derived from microalgae, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010)
79757980.
[37] C. Harto, R. Meyers, E. Williams, Life cycle water use of low-carbon transport fuels,
Energ Policy 38 (2010) 49334944.
[38] J. Yang, M. Xu, X. Zhang, Q. Hu, M. Sommerfeld, Y. Chen, Life-cycle analysis on bio-
diesel production from microalgae: water footprint and nutrient balance, Bioresour.
Technol. 102 (2011) 159165.
[39] A. Clarens, E. Resurreccion, M. White, L. Colosi, Environmental life cycle comparison
of algae to other bioenergy feedstocks, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (5) (2010)
18131819.
[40] B.G. Subhadra, M. Edwards, Coproduct market analysis and water footprint of
simulated commercial algal bioreneries, Appl. Energ. 88 (2011) 35153523.
[41] R. Fontenot, An evaluation of reference evapotranspiration models in Louisiana
(2004) Louisiana State University, Unpublished masters thesis.
[42] NOAA National Climatic Data Center, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov 2012.
[43] A. Stillwell, D. Hoppock, M. Webber, Energy recovery from wastewater treatment
plants in the United States: a case study of the energy-water nexus, Sustainability
2 (2010) 945962.
[44] J. Liu, X. Ma, The analysis on energy and environmental impacts of microalgae-based
fuel methanol in China, Energ Policy 37 (2009) 14791488.
[45] M. Aresta, A. Dibenedetto, G. Barberio, Utilization of macro-algae for enhanced CO
2
xation and biofuels production: development of a computing software for an LCA
study, Fuel Process. Technol. 86 (2005) 16791693.
[46] USDAEconomic Research Service, Fertilizer Use and Price, http://www.ers.usda.gov/
data-products/fertilizer-use-and-price 2013.
[47] E. Frank, J. Han, I. Palou, A. Elgowainy, M. Wang, Methane and nitrous oxide emis-
sions affect the life-cycle analysis of algal biofuels, Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012)
110(014030).
[48] J.K. Pittman, A.P. Dean, O. Osundeko, The potential of sustainable algal biofuel
production using wastewater resources, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011)
1725.
[49] E.B. Sydney, T.E. Silva, A. Tokarski, A.C. Novak, J.C. Carvalho, A.L. Woiciecohwski, C.
Larroche, C.R. Soccol, Screening of microalgae with potential for biodiesel produc-
tion and nutrient removal from treated domestic sewage, Appl. Energ. 88 (2011)
32913294.
[50] R. Munoz, B. Guieysse, Algalbacterial processes for the treatment of hazardous
contaminants: a review, Water Res. 40 (2006) 27992815.
[51] C.S. Theegala, Microalgal lipids for biofuels: current status and recognized barriers,
Book Chapter Proceedings of the 2009 Louisiana Natural Resources Symposium,
2009, pp. 133148, (0-9763632-3-2).
[52] Y. Li, M. Horsman, N. Wu, C. Lan, N. Calero, Biofuels from microalgae, Biotechnol.
Prog. 24 (2008) 815820.
[53] C. Gudin, C. Thepenier, Bioconversion of solar energy into organic chemicals by
microalgae, Adv. Biotechnol. Process. 6 (1986) 73110.
[54] E.M. Grima, Recovery of micro algal biomass and metabolites: process options and
economics, Biotechnol. Adv. 20 (2003) 491515.
[55] E. Poelman, N.D. Pauw, B. Jeurissen, Potential of electrolytic occulation for recovery
of micro-algae, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 19 (1997) 110.
[56] T.M. Mata, A.A. Martins, N.S. Caetano, Microalgae for biodiesel production and other
applications: a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14 (2010) 217232.
[57] A.J. Dassey, C.S. Theegala, Harvesting economics and strategies using centrifugation
for cost effective separation of microalgae cells for biodiesel applications, Bioresour.
Technol. 128 (2013) 241245.
[58] P. Schenk, S. Thomas, E. Stephens, U. Marx, J. Mussgnug, C. Posten, O. Kruse, B.
Hankamer, Second generation biofuels: high-efciency microalgae for biodiesel
production, Bioenerg. Res. 1 (2008) 2043.
[59] T. Lewis, P. Nichols, T. McMeekin, Evaluation of extraction methods for recovery of
fatty acids from lipid producing microheterotrophs, J. Microbiol. Methods 43
(2010) 107116.
[60] P. Mercer, R. Armenta, Developments in oil extraction from microalgae, Eur. J. Lipid
Sci. Technol. 113 (2011) 539547.
[61] P. Chen, M. Min, Y. Chen, L. Wang, Y. Li, Q. Chen, C. Wang, Y. Wan, X. Wang, Y. Cheng,
S. Deng, K. Hennessy, X. Lin, Y. Liu, Y. Wang, B. Martinez, R. Ruan, Review of the bi-
ological and engineering aspects of algae to fuel approach, Int. J. Agric. Bio. Eng. 2 (4)
(2009) 130.
[62] U.S. Department of Energy, www.doe.gov 2008.
[63] J. Iqbal, C. Theegala, Microwave assisted lipid extraction from microalgae using bio-
diesel as co-solvent, Algal Res. 2 (2013) 3442.
[64] K. Sander, G. Murthy, Life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15
(2009) 704714.
[65] J. Iqbal, C. Theegala, Optimizing a continuous ow lipid extraction system (CFLES)
used for extracting microalgal lipids, GCB Bioenergy (2012) 111.
[66] Y. Chisit, Biodiesel from microalgae beats bioethanol, Trends Biotechnol. 26 (3)
(2008) 126131.
[67] E.A. Ehimen, Z.F. Sun, C.G. Carrington, E.J. Birch, J.J. Rye, Anaerobic digestion of
microalgae residues resulting from the biodiesel production process, Appl. Energ.
88 (2011) 34543463.
7 A.J. Dassey et al. / Algal Research xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Please cite this article as: A.J. Dassey, et al., An analysis of energy consumption for algal biodiesel production: Comparing the literature with
current estimates, Algal Res. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.12.006