BIOENERGY FROM ALGAL BIOMASS: An update of the IEA Bioenergy 2010 review of the status and potential of

algal biofuels production

Les A. Edye Bioenergy Australia Conference 2015

BioIndustry Partners

2010 Predictions • USD 1.5 billion algal Biofuels market by 2015 (43%

annual growth from 2010) - SBI Energy

• 380 to 3,800 ML of algal biofuels by 2015 – Emerging Markets Online

• 230 ML by 2015 – Pike Research

• Transition from pilot facilities to commercial production in next 1 to 2 decades – IAE AMF/Bioenergy Task 39

• No commercial algal biofuel production by 2015 – Edye personal opinion

Note: The 2010 report executive summary stated that with continued development algal biofuels have the potential to become economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels and to replace a significant portion of fossil diesel with a environmental footprint smaller than biodiesel using marginal land and saline water, placing no additional pressure on land needed for food production or on freshwater supplies.

Publications Containing the Term or Concept 'algal biofuel’

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000 to 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 to date

Nu

mb

er

of

pu

blic

atio

ns

Scientific literature Patents

Project participants with responsibility to produce written contributions

Name IEA BioE Task Country Affiliation

Les Edye Task 39 Australia BioIndustry Partners

Lieve Laurens Task 39 USA NREL

David Baxter Task 37 Netherlands EU Joint Research Centre - Institute for Energy

Dina Bacovsky Task 39 Austria Bioenergy2020+

Annette Cowie Task 38 Australia NSW Department of Primary Industries

Douglas Elliott Task 34 USA PNNL

Maria Barbosa Task 42 Netherlands Wageningen UR

Judit Sanquist Task 39 Norway SINTEF

David Charamonti Task 39 Italy Universita Degli Studi de Firenze

+ 6 others with oversight and reviewing contributions from US (e.g. NREL & IEA Bioenergy ExCo) and Europe (e.g. EC Directorate-General for Energy & IEA Bioenergy ExCo)

2015 Preliminary findings (Still to be reviewed & approved)

• Algal systems LCAs provide useful information on life cycle elements needing attention to reduce overall impacts of production and use, but current data are insufficient to rely on for formulating policy on algal biofuels. They do not confirm or refute ‘green credentials’ of algal biofuels.

• Macro-algae production will continue to grow, primarily for human nutrition and speciality chemicals.

• Cast (or storm-bounty) macro-algae (the lowest cost source) has a number of commercial uses including as a feedstock for anaerobic digestion (AD). There are locations where the security of supply is sufficient to justify investment in processing plants for food, speciality chemicals, fertilizer and bioenergy (i.e., AD) production that relies on this resource alone for feedstock.

• New micro-algae production systems will move from pilot to profitable commercial enterprises in the next 5 years.

• Micro-algae based liquid biofuels R&D continues to focus on high-lipid organisms grown in raceway ponds, but the first mover production systems with true growth potential are based on heterotrophic algae production in fermentation tanks, not autotrophic algae in raceway ponds (but these production systems will not focus on biofuels).

• The highest value market for large scale, high-lipid micro-algae production will be in aquaculture (for adult and juvenile feed and pond conditioning applications), and this market will likely be large enough to accommodate all growth in micro-algae production.

• It is unlikely there will be any commercial algal liquid biofuel production before 2030 without significant policy intervention (and such intervention, although well intended, may be misguided).

• Continued investment in R,D&D of algae production systems will have reasonable ROI for high value products.

Everybody quotes Yusuf Chisti • 2007 – 2008 ‘50% of the US transportation fuel needs could be

produced on 2 million ha of land’. ‘Algal biofuel can sustainably and completely replace all petroleum derived transport fuels’. • Underlying assumptions: >340 days/yr operation, 70% oil by mass, ca. 50

– 460 g·m-2·d-1 algal growth; only the pond surface area is used in the calculation.

• assumed that CO2 was available at little or no cost and he uses the term ‘sustainable’ too liberally considering the only data he offers up to support his claims are overly optimistic land use efficiency metrics.

• Cited 2,546 times and 326 times in algal biofuels papers

• 2013 ‘The near term outlook for widespread use of algal fuels appears bleak, but fuels for niche applications such as in aviation may be likely in the medium term’. • An insufficiency of low-cost concentrated CO2 co-located with the other

essential resources is a major impediment to any substantial production of algal fuels.

• Sustainability of production requires phosphorous and nitrogen be fully recycled.

• At large scale, a limited supply of freshwater will pose a significant limitation to production, even if marine algae are used.

• Cited 14 times

Aviation fuel consumption: 795 ML/day in 2010; US Military – 28.5 ML/day

Let’s peel the layers off the onion?

• The real demand driven market for micro-algae production

• Managing salinity, N & P, and effluent in salt water raceway pond systems

• Why saline raceway ponds systems can’t be big.

• Effective message?

• Wigmosta et al. assessment of resource potential in the USA

Competing uses for algal biomass • Aquaculture production (e.g. prawns and fin fish) is growing

rapidly • ca. 80 million tonnes now to >180 million tonnes by 2030

• Fish meal (FM) and fish oil (FO) are preferred ingredients in aquaculture feed • FM: 5 million tonnes pa: >65% to aquaculture feed production • FO: 1 million tonnes pa: >85% to aquaculture feed production • Sourced from nature and at peak supply – SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

• Algae products (e.g., whole cell products, oil extracts and meal) are suitable substitutes for FM and FO in aquaculture feed.

• Current value of algal oil as a substitute for fish oil is >5 x prevailing crude petroleum oil price • 2030 fish oil demand for aquaculture: 2 million tonnes (14.3 Mbbl,

2,270 ML) to 3.5 million tonnes (25 Mbbl, 3,970 ML)

• DSM, Alltech, Solazyme & Roquette

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Mar-95 Dec-97 Sep-00 May-03 Feb-06 Nov-08 Aug-11 May-14

Com

mod

ity ($

/ton

ne)

Fish meal, FOB Peru 65% protein

Soybean meal, Chicago futures at FM protein equiv

Crude petroleum oil (WTI)

1995 - ca. 10% FM to aquaculture

2010 - > 65% FM to aquaculture

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Mar-95 Dec-97 Sep-00 May-03 Feb-06 Nov-08 Aug-11 May-14

Com

mod

ity ($

/ton

ne)

Fish oil, FOB Peru Soybean Oil, Chicago futures Crude petroleum oil (WTI)

1995 - ca. 15% FO to aquaculture

2010 - > 85% FO to aquaculture

$100/bbl

$280/bbl

Fish oil and meal production

Algal biomass production

Aquaculture

Another nexus between food and fuel If the aquaculture industry grows as predicted it will compete for land that is equally suited for large algae biofuels production systems based on raceway ponds (flat, non-arable, near water) and provide a very large, higher valued, alternative market for algae products from all production systems (raceway ponds, photobioreactors and fermentation tanks).

Managing salinity in saltwater ponds

• 10,000 ha pond system capable of producing 100 ML of oil p.a. at 20 g.m-2.d-1 and 30% oil content.

• Assumes perfect mixing and is based on average evaporation in Karratha, WA.

0

500

1000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Fre

sh

wa

ter su

pp

ly (M

L/d

ay)

Flo

w (%

po

nd

vo

lum

e/d

ay)

Salinity difference: pond - feed salt concentration (g.L-1)

Inflow Outflow Fresh water

Seawater feed Brackish water Access to fresh water

30

60

Why saline raceway ponds systems can’t be big Inputs

Seawater (volume maintenance) 107,550,444 Litres.day-1 Pond Evaporative losses

Water 106,894 Tonnes.day-1 Volume 210,000,000,000 Litres Water 1,088,100 Tonnes.day-1

Salt 3,871.82 Tonnes.day-1Pond salt conc 36.0 g.L-1

Water 1,088,100,000 Litres.day-1

Density 1.0299 kg.L-1

Water 208,719,000 Tonnes Pond drainage (salinity balance) 918,431,650 Litres.day-1

Salt 7,560,000 Tonnes Water 912829.22 Tonnes.day-1

Salt 33063.54 Tonnes.day-1

Seawater (salinity balance) 0 Litres.day-1

Water 0 Tonnes.day-1 Recirculation (salinity balance) Litres.day-1

Salt 0 Tonnes.day-1 0 Tonnes.day-1

0 Tonnes.day-1

Brackish water (volumemaintenance) 588,100,000 Litres.day-1

Water 586,395 Tonnes.day-1 with recirc

Salt 11,762 Tonnes.day-1 Seawater/Brackish water inflow 1,506,532 M3

Seawater/Brackish water inflow 0.717 % pond volume

Pond outflow to drainage canal 810,881 M3

Brackish water (salinity balance) 918,431,650 Litres.day-1 Pond outflow to drainage canal 0.386 % pond volume

Water 915,768 Tonnes.day-1

Salt 18,368.633 Tonnes.day-1 Recirc 107,550 M3

0.051 % pond volume

Rainfall event

Fresh water (rainfall) 0.0 mm.day-1 Salinity drop 0.00 g.L-1

catchment/pond surface area 1.25 area ratio Days to recover 0.0 Days

Water 0 Litres.day-1Initial pond deepth increase 0.00 m

Water 0 Tonnes.day-1Salt in 15634 Tonnes.day-1

Effective evap saly gain 21302 Tonnes.day-1

Salt out 36935 Tonnes.day-1

Fresh water (Salinity balance) 500,000,000 Litres.day-1Net 0.00 Tonnes.day-1

Water 500,000 Tonnes.day-1

Seawater/Brackish water inflow 1,614,082 M3

Seawater/Brackish water inflow 0.77 % pond volume

Pond outflow to drainage canal 918,432 M3

Pond outflow to drainage canal 0.44 % pond volume

Seepage to ground 107,550,444 Litres.day-1 Fresh water inflow 500,000 M3

Water 106894.39 Tonnes.day-1 Fresh water inflow 0.238 % pond volume

salt 3871.82 Tonnes.day-1

• There is more than one solution to the balance. Recirculation of effluent (after treatment) at higher salinity then the growth ponds adds a further dimension.

• System based on solely seawater feed must operate at higher salinities than normal seawater.

• Brackish water feed allows for system operation at normal seawater concentrations with significantly reduced outflows.

• Combinations of fresh water and brackish water feeds allow further reductions in outflows.

• At least for perfectly mixed systems, to achieve zero discharge there must be enough fresh water to balance evaporation.

8 months of relatively dry weather

10000

0%

10.00%

0.3

0.0

500%

0

0

36

8

45.347 654,000,000

3,000,000 Avg Daily Discharge (m3) 2,477,273

23.390 392,400

2,100,000 -

Peak Daily Discharge (m3)

Farm Size (ha)

Settlement Area (% of pond area)

Maintenance Exchange (% pond volume)

Average Pond depth (m)

Average Settlement Pond Depth (m)

Additional Catchment Area (% of pond and settlement area)

Avg Daily Groundwater Draw

Minimum Salinity Net Nitrogen Discharge (kg)

Peak Rainfall Volume

Groundwater Volume Available (m3 Daily)

Groundwater Salinity (ppt)

Incoming Seawater Salinity (ppt)

Available Pumping Hours

Peak Salinity Total Discharge Volume

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

System Salinity

8 months of relatively dry weather

10000

0%

3.00%

0.3

0.0

500%

0

0

36

8

66.911 224,100,000

900,000 Avg Daily Discharge (m3) 848,864

30.375 134,460

2,100,000 -

Peak Daily Discharge (m3)

Farm Size (ha)

Settlement Area (% of pond area)

Maintenance Exchange (% pond volume)

Average Pond depth (m)

Average Settlement Pond Depth (m)

Additional Catchment Area (% of pond and settlement area)

Avg Daily Groundwater Draw

Minimum Salinity Net Nitrogen Discharge (kg)

Peak Rainfall Volume

Groundwater Volume Available (m3 Daily)

Groundwater Salinity (ppt)

Incoming Seawater Salinity (ppt)

Available Pumping Hours

Peak Salinity Total Discharge Volume

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

System Salinity

8 months of relatively wet weather

10000

0%

10.00%

0.3

0.0

500%

0

0

36

8

45.284 300,000,000

0.000 180,000

29,550,000

Farm Size (ha)

Settlement Area (% of pond area)

Maintenance Exchange (% pond volume)

Average Pond depth (m)

Average Settlement Pond Depth (m)

Additional Catchment Area (% of pond and settlement area)

Peak Rainfall Volume

Total Discharge Volume

Net Nitrogen Discharge (kg)

Groundwater Volume Available (m3 Daily)

Groundwater Salinity (ppt)

Incoming Seawater Salinity (ppt)

Available Pumping Hours

Peak Salinity

Minimum Salinity

05

101520253035404550

System Salinity

100% capital utilisation

Small

Big Reestablish production

Time between significant rain events

• Models based on 100 years of daily evaporation and rainfall, 3 sites in WA – with and without ground water availability and one with brackish water availability.

• A very complex picture. Yearly rainfall patterns completely disrupt production and extreme weather destroys the sea level site unless sea walls are constructed (and this effectively doubles the construction cost).

• Number of days to re-establish production becomes a critical factor and limits size

Effective message?

What Wigmosta et al.’s analysis claims

• 430,830 km2 is available and suitable for algal cultivation • 5.5% of the contiguous US land area • 42% shrub or scrub, 19% herbaceous, 14% evergreen forest,

10% pasture land, 8% deciduous forest, 7% other (mixed forest, barren, low-intensity developed)

• Can produce 220 x 109 L of oil per year • 48% of the US petroleum imports in 2011

• Requires 3 x total current agricultural water use • 1421 L water used/L oil produced

ca. 24,500 L.ha-1.yr-1 oil production and 36.9 g.m-2.d-1

Wigmosta et al.’s optimised analysis

Gulf Coast, SE Seaboard, Great Lakes

• 141,900 km2 is available and suitable for algal cultivation • 1.8% of the contiguous US land area

• Can produce 78 x 109 L of oil per year • 17% of the US petroleum imports in 2011

• Requires 25% current irrigation water demand • 350 L water used/L of oil produced By comparison corn ethanol uses between 7 and 321 L of irrigation water per L

of ethanol & a further 3 L/L of process water. (Wu et al., 2009)

What’s Wigmosta et al.’s analysis about and what’s the appropriate response?

• High resolution national scale resource and production assessment for siting 400 ha pond surface area freshwater production systems • Land resources – GIS topography, existing use, land cover,

impervious surfaces used to identify contiguous areas of suitable land with ≤1% slope (at 30 m resolution)

• Water requirements – rainfall and evaporation data used to model evaporative water loss, water is assumed to be not limiting (whether the required water is actually available is not considered).

• Biophysical model of biomass growth is based on incident radiation, pond temperature and biomass accumulation efficiency (a function of species and growth conditions). Biomass accumulation efficiency is poorly understood.

What’s Wigmosta et al.’s analysis about? • Perfectly efficient algal growth

• All light converted to lipid (i.e. biomass is 100% lipid) • Average conversion efficiency of radiation to biomass is 11% • National mean growth 50.3 g.m-2.d-1 (range from 36.7 g.m-2.d-1

to 62.4 g.m-2.d-1)

• Up to 165,000 L.ha-1.yr-1 oil production (assumes 100% extraction efficiency)

• Current best algal growth • Biomass is 20% lipid • Average conversion efficiency of radiation to biomass is 1.15% • National mean growth 8.7 g.m-2.d-1 (range from 3.7 g.m-2.d-1 to

15.8 g.m-2.d-1)

• Up to 10,500 L.ha-1.yr-1 oil production (assumes 100% extraction efficiency)

Where is the water?

Average monthly temperature of coldest month ≥ 15 ⁰C

What’s the appropriate response? • This is a very detailed data rich analysis and undoubtedly an

important initial step towards quantifying micro algae production potential.

• Sustainability of freshwater algae production is not addressed.

• Suggesting the Great Lakes is a good place to grow algae is based entirely on optimisation of water use and shows little understanding of capital utilisation. Full production cost will be perhaps 50% higher than that of the Gulf Coast.

• In fact optimisation based on water use takes out the only places in the mainland US where algae is grown commercially (CA and NM).

• Optimum region is Gulf Coast but authors acknowledge that water availability is an issue in the region.

• While authors acknowledge the issue of competing water demands and suggest saline water use might address the issue, the model is entirely freshwater based.

• It’s a big shift away from the claimed superiority of algal production systems – that algae can be produced on non-arable land and does not compete with food production.