b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 4 1 8 e4 2 5

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Emergy analysis of oil production from microalgae

Rui Vogt Alves da Cruz*, Claudio Augusto Oller do Nascimento

Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo e Departamento de Engenharia Quı́mica, Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, trav. 3, n. 380,
CEP 05508-900 São Paulo, Brazil

article info abstract

Article history: The use of microalgae and cyanobacteria for the production of biofuels and other raw
Received 1 November 2011 materials is considered a very promising sustainable technology due to the high areal
Received in revised form productivity, potential for CO2 fixation and use of non-arable land. The production of oil by
25 February 2012 microalgae in a large scale plant was studied using emergy analysis. The joint transformity
Accepted 5 September 2012 calculated for the base scenario was 1.32E þ 5 sej/J, the oil transformity was 3.51E þ 5 sej/J,
Available online 9 October 2012 the emergy yield ratio (EYR) was 1.09 and environmental loading ratio was 11.10 and the
emergy sustainability index (ESI) was 0.10, highlighting some of the key challenges for the
Keywords: technology such as high energy consumption during harvesting, raw material consump-
Emergy analysis tion and high capital and operation costs. Alternatives scenarios and the sensitivity to
Microalgae process improvements were also assessed, helping prioritize further research based on
Renewable feedstocks sustainability impact.
Emergy indices ª 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sustainability

1. Introduction A number of studies have described in detail the economic

The use of microalgae and cyanobacteria for the production of
biofuels and renewable feedstocks has been regarded as an
extremely promising sustainable technology [1]. Some of the
key advantages are the high areal productivity and lipid
content [2], the potential for CO2 fixation (ca. 1.8 kg CO2 per kg
of biomass produced) [3], the possibility of using non-arable
land and the number of high value substances that can also
be extracted [4].
However, there are still challenges for the large scale
implementation of this technology, such as, high capital,
operation costs and energy consumption, seasonal variations
in productivity and contamination risks when using open
ponds. The harvesting and extraction steps represent one of
the main areas for improvement, accounting for up to 30% of
the capital costs [5] and 90% of the total energy demand [6].
analysis for open [5,7] and closed systems [8], but it is also
extremely important to take sustainability aspects into
consideration when evaluating feasibility or comparing tech-
nologies. Emergy analysis is particularly useful for that
purpose, as it accounts for the total investment from the
environment and the economy for a given process, converted
to common units, the solar emjoules (sejs) [9]. The method-
ology has been previously used in the evaluation of processes
to manufacture ethanol [10e12] and diesel [13e16] from
renewable sources, as well as other industrial uses of biomass
[17]. It has also been used by Bastianoni et al. [18] to compare
the production of oil from macroalgae harvested from
a lagoon in Italy to sunflower for the production of biodiesel.
Emergy represents the total available solar energy that has
been used directly and indirectly in the creation of a given
product, taking in consideration the quality of each flow used

* Corresponding author. Fax: þ55 11 3813 2380.

E-mail address: ruivogt@usp.br (R.V.Alvesda Cruz).
0961-9534/$ e see front matter ª 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.09.016
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 4 1 8 e4 2 5
Table 1 e Emergy indices.
Index Formula
Transformity (Tr) Tr ¼ Y/Ep
Emergy yield ratio (EYR) EYR ¼ Y/F
Environmental loading ratio (ELR) ELR¼(F þ N)/R
Emergy renewability (%R) %R ¼ R/Y
Emergy investment ratio (EIR) EIR ¼ F/(R þ N)
Emergy sustainability index (ESI) ESI ¼ EYR/ELR
in the process [9]. It accounts for contributions both from the
economy and nature, measured in a common base.
2. Materials and methods
The emergy analysis for a given process starts by the defini-
tion of boundaries for the system of interest, creation of an
emergy diagram, followed by the analysis, classification and
accounting of all energy inputs and outputs. Flows are clas-
sified according to their source as renewable (R), non-
renewable (N) and as goods, work or services from the
economy (F). The emergy flows are then used to calculate the
relevant emergy indices to evaluate the overall sustainability
of the process and allow comparison with other technologies.
Table 1 summarizes the emergy indices used in this paper
and their corresponding formulas. Transformity (Tr) is
a measurement of the quality of the energy flow, calculated as
the ratio between the total emergy flows and the total energy
contained in the products (Ep). Transformity values increase
with the number of transformations involved in the creation
of a product, as each step will consume more available energy
to produce a smaller energy with different quality. Processed
goods will have higher transformity than the natural
resources used in their production, e.g. planks will have
higher transformity than trees, which in turn have higher
transformity than the solar energy used in their growth.
The emergy yield ratio (EYR) is the ratio between the total
emergy used by the system (Y ¼ R þ N þ F) and the investment
made by the economy (F), and is an assessment on how much
is returned by the process to the economy given the emergy
from the elements purchased. The environmental loading
CO2 Water (make-
up)
Nutrients Raceway tanks
(make-up)
Recycle
Solvent Recovery
Fig. 1 e Block diagram for reference system.
419
ratio (ELR), calculated as the ratio between the non-renewable
flows (N þ F) and the renewable flows from the environment
(R). Higher ELR values are associated with systems with
greater impact to the environment.
The fraction of renewable flows in the total system emergy
is represented by the renewable content (reported as %R) and
is an important indicator of the process sustainability. Higher
renewable contents are associated to more renewable
processes. The renewable content will typically decrease
through the value chain, e.g. sugar cane has a higher renew-
able content than the resulting ethanol, given the non-
renewable resources used in the industrial step.
The emergy sustainability index (ESI) was originally
proposed by Brown e Ulgiati [19] and is calculated by dividing
the emergy yield ratio by the environmental loading ratio and
is especially useful for comparing different processes. A
sustainable process should maximize the ESI.
The reference system considered for this analysis con-
sisted of 500 ha of raceway ponds, each one with 20 acres and
0.4 m deep (0.3 m used for culture), with concrete walls and
channels and compacted ground on the bottom. The algal
suspension is collected periodically as concentration reaches
1 g L1 and transferred to storage tanks, which feed a battery
of centrifuges raising the concentration to 22% solids. Water is
further removed by belt driers commonly used in water
treatment plants and the algal oil is obtained by solvent
extraction using hexane. The solvent is recovered by distilla-
tion and recycled. Fig. 1 summarizes the process and the
material flows and recycles.
The mass and energy balances considered a microalgae
culture with an average productivity of 25 g m2 day1 and
25% oil content, yielding 9700 ton year1 of algal oil and
31,550 ton year1 of residual biomass and are described in the
Appendix. Equipment dimensions and costs were based in the
rules proposed by Peter, Timmerhaus and West [20], adjusted
by inflation for 2011. Land, labor, energy and raw materials
cost were quoted for central Texas, in the United States.
Construction costs were estimated by the guidelines proposed
by Peter, Timmerhaus and West [20] as % of major equipment
cost and include installation, control, engineering, contractor,
services and contingency. Taxes, services and externalities
include CO2 transportation fees (estimated in $50 ton1),
Centrifuges Dryers
Hexane (make-up.)
Solvent Extraction
Oil Biomass
420 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 4 1 8 e4 2 5
Water Nutrients Labor Services
Natural
Resources
Ponds
Fig. 2 e Emergy diagram of the microalgae production.
maintenance, SARD (Sales, Administration and R&D), prop-
erty taxes and insurance estimated as function of the total
capital or operating labor costs [20]. Culture and harvesting
costs, raw materials and energy consumption were based on
published process and economic analysis [5,7,8]. The oil
extraction phase was based on current processes for the
production of soy oil [21]. The problem of co-production of oil
and dry biomass was addressed by calculating the joint
transformities for the system [22]. Fig. 2 shows the emergy
diagram for the system considered in this study, splitting the
process between the ponds and the industrial phase and
accounting for all environment and economy inputs.
The impact of some of the key process variables (areal
productivity, oil content and energy demand) was assessed by
evaluating the emergy indices for three alternative scenarios,
described in Table 2. The high productivity scenario considers
the same culture area (raceway ponds) as the base scenario,
also with 25% oil content and same volumetric energy
consumption, but with an average areal productivity of
60 g m2 day1. Culture media consumption and the harvesting
and extraction sections were adjusted accordingly to account
for the shorter harvesting cycles and larger volumes of
suspension to be processed e impacting in more filter, centri-
fuges and driers, for example. The high oil content scenario
considered the same productivity and culture system for the
base case, but for a microorganism being cultured to 75% oil
content. The most relevant changes to the model in this
scenario are the energy composition of the products (the
energy density of lipids is almost twice the density of protein
and carbohydrates) and changes in the extraction step and
solvent consumption. Finally, the energy efficiency scenario
considers the same growth conditions and microalgae
Table 2 e Alternative scenarios for sensitivity analysis.
Scenario Assumptions
High productivity Average areal productivity of 60 g m2 day1
High oil content 75% oil content in biomass
Energy efficient 50% reduction in energy consumption
process
Natural
Steel Concrete Electricity Hexane
Gas
Assets
Oil
Harvesting and Oil Extraction Residual
Biomass
Drying
composition, but assuming breakthroughs in harvesting and
extraction allowing a 50% reduction in energy consumption.
3. Results and discussion
Table 3 shows the emergy evaluation table for the base case.
The major renewable flows are related the water to make-up
for the net losses by evaporation in the tanks and in the
drying section, which can be supplied by a nearby river or
well. The joint transformity for the system, considering the
energy content of both products is 1.32E þ 5 sej J1, or
1.05E þ 5 sej J1 excluding the flows related to services. The
calculated transformity of the oil was 3.51E þ 5 sej J1 (or
2.79E þ 5 sej J1 excluding services), in agreement with ranges
obtained for the production of traditional seed oils
(2.78E þ 5 sej J1 for sunflower [18] and 3.51E þ 5 for soy oil [21])
and with the transformity of 2.64E þ 5 sej J1 calculated for oil
extracted from macroalgae from a natural lake [21]. Energy
(electricity and natural gas) for pumping, mixing, harvesting,
drying and extracting the oil accounts for 59.4% of the emergy
inputs of the system. The hexane consumption, caused by
loses in the extraction process and water reposition to balance
losses by evaporation and harvesting were also relevant
inputs, representing respectively 11% and 7.4% of the total
emergy used by the system.
Table 4 summarizes the results of the analysis of emergy
indices for the reference scenario. The renewable content is
only 8.3% and the emergy yield ratio (EYR) and environmental
loading ratio (ELR) are comparable to other very energy
intensive processes for the alternative production of biofuels,
such as the production of ethanol from grapes in Italy
(EYR ¼ 1.22 and ELR ¼ 13.63 [12]). The emergy sustainability
index was considerably lower than typical ranges for biofuels
(0.3e0.5) or seed oils (ca. 1.0). The high environmental loading
is mostly due to high energy needs for harvesting, drying and
extraction associated to considerable investments of mate-
rials and services. A similar behavior has also been reported
for the integrated production of biofuels from palm [13]. If only
the cultivation step is considered, the renewable content is
30.5% and emergy yield ratio (EYR ¼ 1.44) and the
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 4 1 8 e4 2 5 421

Table 3 e Emergy analysis for reference scenario.

Notes Item Unit Amount Emergy per unit Solar emergy/ % total References for
(unit year1) (sej unity1) (sej year1) transformity

Renewable natural resources

1 Solar radiation J 2.59E þ 16 1.00E þ 00 2.59E þ 16 0.0% [9]
2 Rain kg 5.31E þ 09 1.51E þ 08 8.02E þ 17 0.7% [9]
3 Geothermal heat J 1.50E þ 13 1.01E þ 04 1.52E þ 17 0.1% [9]
4 Water kg 6.73E þ 09 1.25E þ 09 8.41E þ 18 7.4% [23]
Non-renewable natural resources
Materials
5 Nutrients e Nitrogen kg 3.98E þ 06 2.41E þ 10 9.59E þ 16 0.1% [23]
6 Nutrients e Phosphorus kg 3.11E þ 05 1.13E þ 10 3.51E þ 15 0.0% [23]
7 Concrete kg 4.89E þ 05 9.26E þ 10 4.53E þ 16 0.0% [22]
8 Iron e Construction kg 7.14E þ 03 1.13E þ 13 8.06E þ 16 0.1% [21]
9 Steel e Tanks and equipment kg 6.24E þ 04 1.13E þ 13 7.05E þ 17 0.6% [23]
10 Hexane kg 2.06E þ 06 6.08E þ 12 1.25E þ 19 11.0% [21]
11 Electricity J 2.14E þ 14 2.00E þ 05 4.29E þ 19 37.7% [23]
12 Natural Gas J 5.66E þ 14 4.35E þ 04 2.46E þ 19 21.7% [24]
Services
13 Labor J 1.33E þ 10 1.24E þ 07 1.65E þ 17 0.1% [23]
14 Construction $ 1.55E þ 06 1.10E þ 12 1.70E þ 18 1.5% [10]
15 Services and externalities $ 1.64E þ 07 1.10E þ 12 1.80E þ 19 15.8% [10]
16 Taxes $ 3.11E þ 06 1.10E þ 12 3.42E þ 18 3.0% [10]
Total Emergy 1.14E þ 20
Total Emergy w/o Services 9.07E þ 19
Products and byproducts
Biomass kg 3.16Eþ07
17 Biomass J 5.36Eþ14
Algal oil kg 9.70Eþ06
18 Algal oil J 3.25Eþ14

environmental loading ratio (ELR ¼ 2.28) are closer to values materials and services) as non-renewable, regardless of their
typically obtained for agricultural systems. source. More recently, some authors have been assessing the
The indices referenced above for effect of comparison were renewable fraction of each flow when calculating the indices
calculated using the traditional methodology that considers [10]. Though considerably increasing the complexity of the
the total flow of resources from the economy (purchased analysis, this approach is supposed to correct deviations and
account for the positive impact of using materials with higher
renewable content in the process. For some systems, it has
Table 4 e Emergy indices for reference scenario. been demonstrated that this correction can almost double the
Index Value Unit emergy sustainability indices (ESI) [25]. Even though no major
impact to the indices is expected for the system studied,
Total emergy (Y) 1.14E þ 20 Sej year1
considering an algae farm located in Central Texas, the
Total emergy w/o services 9.07E þ 19 Sej year1
alternative calculation would show considerably better
Energy of products (Ep) 8.61E þ 14 J year1
Energy of oil (Eoil) 3.25E þ 14 J year1 results for algae systems installed in countries where the
Joint transformity (Y/Ep) 1.32E þ 05 Sej J1 sources of energy have higher renewable content, such as
Joint transformity w/o services 1.05E þ 05 Sej J1 Brazil, where hydroelectricity and electricity from biomass
Transformity of oil (Y/Eoil) 3.51E þ 05 Sej J1 and other renewable sources account for almost 80% of the
Transformity of oil w/o Services 2.79E þ 05 Sej J1 electricity produced. Likewise, the use of biomass as the
Specific emergy of oil 1.18E þ 10 Sej g1
source of heat from drying and extraction would have a posi-
Specific emergy of oil w/o Services 9.35E þ 09 Sej g1
tive impact in the adjusted emergy indices.
R (Natural, renewable) 9.39E þ 18 Sej year1
N (Natural, non-renewable) 0.00E þ 00 Sej year1 The industrial phase, due to the impact of capital invest-
M (Materials) 8.10E þ 19 Sej year1 ment and energy, accounts for most of the emergy flows into
S (Services) 2.33E þ 19 Sej year1 the system. Fig. 3 shows the distribution of emergy demand
I (Natural resources) 9.39E þ 18 Sej year1 through the process by flow class and process step.
F (Resources from economy) 1.04E þ 20 Sej year1 Three alternative scenarios assuming improved technol-
%Renewablea 8.3%
ogies to allow higher productivity, higher oil content and
EYRa 1.09
EIRa 11.10
lower energy demands were also studied to assess the
ELRa 11.10 impact of those important process variables to overall
ESIa 0.10 sustainability and resource utilization by the system. Fig. 4
summarizes the transformity, emergy sustainability index
a Including services.
and renewable content for each scenario. The impact of oil
422 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 4 1 8 e4 2 5

8E+19

7E+19

6E+19

5E+19

4E+19 Ponds
Industrial Phase
3E+19

2E+19

1E+19

0E+00
Renewable Non-Renewable Materials Services

Fig. 3 e Emergy contributions by process step.

concentration to transformity is explained by the higher

total energy content of the products e caused by higher
1.4E+05 energy content in lipids. Areal productivity has a negative
Joint Transformity (Tr) / sej J-1

1.2E+05 impact to the renewable content and sustainability indices,

because at similar harvesting concentrations, it will
1.0E+05
impact directly the number of dryers, centrifuges and
8.0E+04 tanks e therefore increasing the consumption of materials
6.0E+04 of construction and building costs e and also the total
energy consumption, due to the higher number of harvest-
4.0E+04
ing cycles (the model assumes cultivation at similar condi-
2.0E+04
tions and harvesting concentration), and volume of
0.0E+00 suspension to be harvested, concentrated and dried. This
Base High productivity High oil content Energy efficient
process
trend highlights the need for the development of more effi-
cient harvesting, separation and extraction technologies,
14%
which could then unveil the potential of higher productivity
12% systems. Indeed, the lowest transformity (9.28E þ 04 sej J1)
10% and highest emergy sustainability index (ESI ¼ 0.15) among
% Renewables

the systems evaluated were obtained for the energy efficient

8%
scenario, in which only 50% of the energy consumed at the
6%
base case is required by the process.
4%

2%

0%
4. Conclusion
Base High productivity High oil content Energy efficient
process
Emergy analysis is a powerful tool for assessing the impact of
0.16 a given technology or project to the environment and the
Emergy Sustainability Index (ESI)

0.14 economy. It allowed the evaluation of the sustainability and

0.12 resource utilization indices for the production of oil by
0.10
microalgae, combined with comparisons with other potential
sources of biofuels e renewable feedstocks based on terrestrial
0.08
biomass. In order of relevance, the high energy consumption
0.06
(electricity and natural gas), operating costs (external
0.04 purchases, services, maintenance) and solvent losses during
0.02 extraction are the main challenges for the sustainability of the
0.00 proposed process. Even the best scenario evaluated, namely
Base High productivity High oil content Energy efficient the one considering the impact of breakthroughs in harvest-
process
ing and extraction that would enable a process demanding
Fig. 4 e Emergy indices for alternative scenarios. only 50% of the energy (electricity and natural gas) of the base
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 4 1 8 e4 2 5 423

case, still presented a lower efficiency in the utilization of
resources than the less competitive alternative biofuels, such
as ethanol from corn or grapes. Those results highlight the
importance of developing more efficient technologies for
harvesting, extraction and drying, with lower capital costs and
energy demand, which are also some the areas of the process
with highest impact on project economics [26]. The sustain-
ability indices can also be improved by using energy sources
with higher renewable emergy content e such us hydroelec-
tricity, wind or biomass.

Appendix

Table A1 - Notes to Table 3.

Reference

1 Solar energy
Solar radiation 1.65E þ 06 Wh m2 year1 [27]
Albedo 1.30E-01 [27]
Conversion 3.60E þ 03 J Wh1
Energy ¼ Radiation  (1-Albedo) 5.17E þ 09 J m2 year1
Area 5.00E þ 06 m2
Total Energy 2.59E þ 16 J year1
2 Rain
Average precipitation 1.06E þ 03 mm year1 [27]
Area 5.00E þ 06 m2
Rain (mass) ¼ Average 5.31E þ 09 kg year1
precipitation  area  density
3 Geothermal heat
Areal average flow 3.00E þ 06 J m2 year1 [9]
Area 5.00E þ 06 m2
Energy ¼ flow  area 1.50E þ 13 J year1
4 Water (Make-up)
Net losses evaporation 6.60E þ 09 kg year1 [28]
Drying 1.37E þ 05 kg year1 99% of water removed, slurry initially at
21.9% solids
Final Product 1.49E þ 03 kg year1 4.7% water in final product
Water (sum) 6.73E þ 09 kg year1
5 Nutrients e Nitrogen
N demand 9.54E-02 kg N kg1 biomass Average composition of Spirulina platensis
[29]
Biomass harvested 4.13E þ 07 kg year1
N consumption (growth) 3.94E þ 06 kg year1
Losses 4.48E þ 04 kg year1 1.8% extracellular salts in dry biomass
sold
N flow (sum) 3.98E þ 06 kg N year1
6 Nutrients e Potassium
P demand 7.54E-03 kg P kg1 biomass Average composition of Spirulina platensis
[29]
Biomass harvested 4.13E þ 07 kg year1
P consumption (growth) 3.07E þ 05 kg year1
Losses 3.50E þ 03 kg year1 1.8% extracellular salts in dry biomass
sold
P flow (sum) 3.11E þ 05 kg P year1
7 Concrete (Ponds)
Perimeter 1.52E þ 03 m
Internal wall 5.05E þ 02 m
Total walls 2.02E þ 03 m
Thickness 1.00E-01 m
Height 4.00E-01 m
Volume 8.09E þ 01 m3
Density 2.40E þ 03 kg m3
Total mass per pond 1.94E þ 05 kg concrete pond1
Number of ponds 63 Ponds
Project life 25 Years
Concrete flow 4.89E þ 05 kg concrete year1
8 Iron
Iron reinforcement in concrete 3.50E þ 01 kg m3 [21]
Volume of concrete per pond 8.09E þ 01 m3 See Item 7

(continued on next page)

424 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 4 1 8 e4 2 5

Appendix (continued )
Reference

Number of ponds 63 ponds

Project life 25 years
Iron flow 7.14E þ 03 kg year1
9 Steel
Allocation in extractor 1.00E-04 kg kg biomass1 year1 [21]
Mass e extractor 1.03E þ 05 kg
Mass e dryers 5.00E þ 04 kg Typical equipment specs
Number of dryers 2
Total mass e dryers 1.00E þ 05 kg
Mass centrifuges 1.00E þ 04 kg Typical equipment specs
Number of centrifuges 41
Total mass e centrifuges 4.10E þ 05 kg
Mass per 5.000 m3 tank 1.56E þ 05 kg [20]
Number of 5.000 m3 tanks 8
Mass per 200 m3 tank 1.82E þ 04 [20]
Number of 200 m3 tanks 3
Total mass e tanks 1.30E þ 06 kg
Total mass e equipments 1.56E þ 06 kg
Project life 25 Years
Steel flow 6.24E þ 04 kg year1
10 Hexane
Total hexane flow in extraction 41.25E þ 06 ton year1 1 ton hexane ton1 biomass
Hexane recovery 95%
Hexane losses 2.06E þ 03 ton year1
11 Electricity
Electricity 5.96E þ 07 kWh year1 Centrifuges (Westfalia Decanter UCD 755,
GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc.),
pumps [20], agitation [20]
Conversion 3.60E þ 03 J Wh1
Total 2.14E þ 14 J year1
12 Natural gas
Drying 1.28E þ 07 m3 year1 [20], equipment specs
Recovery (extraction) 1.64E þ 06 m3 year1 Equipment specs, analogy soy oil
extraction
Finishing (solvent removal) 2.62E þ 04 m3 year1 [20], equipment specs
Quantity 1.45E þ 07 m3 year1
Conversion 3.90E þ 07 J m3
Natural gas flow 5.66E þ 14 J year1
13 Labor
Total employees per shift 3
Total supervisors 1
Hours 25,410 h year1
Metabolic man-daily energy 1.26E þ 07 J day1 [18]
Metabolic energy man-hour 5.25Eþ05 J h1
Total energy 1.33E þ 10 J year1
14 Construction
Total construction costs 38,693,174 $ Installation þ Control þ Services þ
Engineering and Supervision þ
Construction Expenses þ
Contractor Costs þ Contingency ¼
1.87  Large Equipment Costs [20]
Project life 25 Years
Construction 1,547,727 $ year1
15 Services and externalities
CO2 transport 3,630,000 $ year1 $50 ton1 CO2
Maintenance 6,221,804 $ year1 0.06  Fixed capital
Operation items 933,271 $ year1 0.15  Maintenance costs
Lab costs 157,680 $ year1 0.15  Labor costs
Extras 4,458,410 $ year1 0.6  (Labor þ Maintenance costs)
Administration. Sales and R&D 977,146 $ year1
Total 16,378,311 $ year1
16 Taxes
Property taxes 2,073,935 $ year1 0.02  Fixed capital [20]
Insurance 1,036,967 $ year1 0.01  Fixed capital [20]
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 4 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 4 1 8 e4 2 5
Appendix (continued )
Total 3,110,902
17 Residual biomass
Energy density 17
1.70E þ 07
18 Algal oil
Energy density 33.5
3.35E þ 07
references
[1] Greenwell HC, Laurens LML, Shields RJ, Lovitt RW, Flynn KJ.
Placing microalgae on the biofuels priority list: a review of
the technological challenges. J R Soc Interface 2010;7:703e26.
[2] Chisti Y. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol Adv 2007;25:
294e306.
[3] Algae-Based Biofuels FAO. Review of challenges and
opportunities for developing countries. FAO, http://www.fao.
org/fileadmin/templates/aquaticbiofuels/docs/0905_FAO_
Review_Paper_on_Algae-based_Biofuels.pdf; 2009.
[4] Cardozo KHM, Guaratini T, Barros MP, Falcão VR, Tonon AP,
Lopes NP, et al. Metabolites from algae with economical
impact. Comp Biochem Physiol C 2007;146:60e78.
[5] Benemann JR, Oswald WJ. Systems and economic analysis of
microalgae ponds for conversion of CO2 to biomass. Final
report to the department of energy. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh
Energy Technology Center; 1996.
[6] Lardon L, Hélias A, Sialve B, Steyer P, Bernard O. Life cycle
assessment of biodiesel production from microalgae. Env Sci
Tech 2009;42:6475e81.
[7] Stephens E, Ross IL, King Z, Mussgnug JH, Kruse O, Posten C,
et al. An economic and technical evaluation of microalgal
biofuels. Nat Biotech 2010;28:126e8.
[8] Molina Grima E, Belarbi EJ, Fernandez FGA, Medina AR,
Chisti Y. Recovery of microalgal biomass and metabolites:
process options and economics. Biotechnol Adv 2003 2003;20:
491e515.
[9] Odum HT. Environmental accounting: emergy and
environmental decision making. New York: Wiley; 1996.
[10] Felix E, Tilley DR. Integrated energy, environmental and
financial analysis is of ethanol production from cellulosic
switchgrass. Energy 2009;34:410e36.
[11] Yang H, Chen L, Yan Z, Wang H. Emergy analysis of cassava-
based fuel ethanol in China. Biomass Bioen 2011;35:581e9.
[12] Bastianoni S, Marchettini N. Ethanol production from
biomass: analysis of process efficiency and sustainability.
Biomass Bioen 1996;11:411e8.
[13] Goh CS, Lee KT. Palm-based biofuel refinery (PBR) to
substitute petroleum refinery: an energy and emergy
assessment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2986e95.
[14] Carraretto C, Macor A, Mirandola A, Stoppato A, Tonnon S.
Biodiesel as alternative fuel: experimental analsyis and
energetic evaluations. Energy 2004;29:2195e211.
425
Reference
1
$ year
kJ g1 For proteins and carbohydrates
Jvkg1
kJ g1 [18]
J kg1
[15] Giampietro M, Ulgiati S, Pimentel S. Feasibility of large-scale
biofuel production. BioScience 1997;47:587e600.
[16] Takahasi F, Ortega E. Assessing the sustainability of Brazilian
oleaginous groups e possible raw material to produce
biodiesel. Energy Pol 2010;38:2446e54.
[17] Nilsson D. Energy, exergy and emergy analysis of using straw
as fuel in district heating plants. Biomass Bioen 1997;13:
63e73.
[18] Bastianoni S, Coppola F, Tiezzi E, Colacevich A, Borghini F,
Focardi S. Biofuel potential production from the Orbetello
lagoon macroalgae: a comparison with sunflower feedstock.
Biomass Bioen 2008;32:619e28.
[19] Ulgiati S, Brown MT. Emergy-based indices to evaluate
sustainability: monitoring economies and technology toward
environmentally sound innovation. Ecol Eng 1997;9:51e69.
[20] Peters MS, Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, West R. Plant design
and economics for chemical engineers. 5th ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill; 2003.
[21] Cavalett O, Ortega E. Emergy, nutrients balance and
economics assessment of soybean production and
industrialization in Brazil. J Clean Prod 2009;17:762e71.
[22] Bastianoni S, Marchettini N. The problem of co-production in
environmental accounting by emergy analysis. Ecol Model
2000;129:187e93.
[23] Brandt-Williams SL. Handbook of emergy evaluation:folio 4.
Gainesville, FL: Emergy of Florida Agriculture, Systems
Ecology Center, University of Florida; 2002.
[24] Bastianoni S, Campbell DE, Ridolfi R, Pulselli FM. The solar
transformity of petroleum fuels. Eco Model 2009;220:40e50.
[25] Pereira CLF. Sustainability evaluation of agro industrial
products. Case studies: orange juice and ethanol
[dissertation]. Campinas, Brazil: State University of
Campinas, 2008.
[26] Cruz RVA. Study on the use of microalgae and cyanobacteria
for the fixation of carbon dioxide and production of raw
materials for industrial applications [dissertation]. São Paulo,
Brazil: University of São Paulo; 2011.
[27] NASA. Surface meteorology and solar energy. NASA, http://
eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/sse/sse.cgi; 2011.
[28] EPA. Technical guidance for hazard analysis. U.S. EPA, http://
www.epa.gov/OEM/docs/chem/tech.pdf; 1987.
[29] Cornet JF, Dussap CG, Cluzel P, Dubertret G. A structured
model for simulation of cultures of cyanobacterium
Spirulina platensis in photobioreactors: II. Indentification of
kinetic parameters under light and mineral limitations.
Biotech Bioeng 1992;40:826e34.