23rd European Biomass Conference & Exhibition, Algae Event 2015

Energy analysis of algae-to-biofuel production chains

integrated with a combined heat and power plant
Mikko Kouhia

Henrik Holmberg

Matti Sonck

Pekka Ahtila

2nd June 2015

Abstract

store than the energy source, algae cultivation and fuel

production acts effectively as energy upgrading or storing.
In that context, larger heat consumption can be tolerated.
In combined heat and power (CHP) production, heat
and electricity are co-produced in a single power plant at
a high fuel efficiency (commonly > 90 %. The plants are
usually operated based on the heat load and thus the electricity production varies with the heat load. In industrial
CHP plants, the heat load is somewhat constant, but in
municipal CHP plants the load varies and the plant total
capacity is unutilized most of the time. By integrating
useful heat loads into the system, the plant operational
hours can be increased, thus resulting in more electricity
generation at a high efficiency. Correspondingly, the power
plant investment is utilized more effectively, and the CO2
emissions from the energy system may be reduced in comparison to stand-alone production.
This study investigates algae-to-biofuel production
chains with methane, biodiesel and ethanol as end products.
Achievable production and energy consumption are estimated in a system, where 100 ha land is available for algae
cultivation. Differences between process energy consumption patterns are identified and areas requiring further
development are highlighted. Initial values represent productivities and energy consumption levels that can be
achieved with current technologies.

This study examines energy and mass balances of algae

cultivation and different post-processing pathways. Flue
gases and excess heat from a combined heat and power
(CHP) plant are used in algae cultivation, alongside with
nutrients from municipal wastewaters. In the studied cases,
algae are cultivated in open ponds and photobioreactors
with or without artificial lighting. Algal mass is used for
methane, biodiesel or ethanol production, or alternatively
it is burned in a boiler. Results show that in most cases
energy consumption in processing is larger than the final
energy output. However, a large fraction of input energy
is low temperature level heat, while the products have
higher value. Energy output from different pathways is
similar, but heat and electricity consumption in processing
varies significantly. Technological development and system
optimization enable reduction of energy consumption.
Keywords: microalgae, biofuel, energy balance, integration,
end products

1 Introduction
Algal cultivation for material and energy production has
received significant attention recently. Previous studies
have shown that energy consumption in systems designated
for algal fuel production is significant, and often greater
than their energy output [1, 2]. Co-generation of additional energy products [3], as well as integration of flue gas
and wastewater input [1] into algae cultivation have been
determined to increase total feasibility of the production
system.
Even though energy consumption has been identified
as one hindrance for mass production of algal fuels and
products, the difference between heat and electricity is
often overlooked. The cost difference between these energy
sources can be large, especially if the required heat is of
low temperature level. Sources of low-cost heat include
industrial processes and power production systems. If
the products are of higher value, or easier to consume or

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Cultivation

Table I displays initial data for the calculations: different

values for biomass productivity are used depending on the
used cultivation method and whether additional lighting is
provided for the algae. Other assumptions are common for
all cases. 100 ha land area is provided for cultivation, and
sufficient amount of municipal wastewaters and industrial
flue gases are provided for the algae. Hence, available
cultivation area is the growth-limiting factor.
Tubular photobioreactors and raceway ponds are considered as cultivation system alternatives with and
Corresponding author:
email mikko.kouhia@aalto.fi, tel. without artificial lighting. Annual average growth rates for
+358 50 342 7212
Department of Energy Technology, Aalto University, FI-00076, Central European conditions are utilized in growth estimation, as shown in Table I. For two cultivation setups, artiAalto, Finland
Fortum Corporation, FI-00048 Fortum, Finland
ficial lighting is provided to keep daily light level at yearly

Table I: Initial assumptions for cultivation and post-processing pathways

Available land area
Algae composition a
Lipids
Carbohydrates
Proteins
Carbohydrate composition
Lipid composition
Protein composition
Lipid free fatty acid share
Annual biomass production b
Open pond
Open pond, additional light
Photobioreactor (PBR)
PBR, additional light
Natural irradiance
Additional light demand
Light conversion efficiency
Flue gas
CO2 in flue gases (vol.)
CO2 requirement per kg algae
CO2 utilization efficiency
Wastewater and nutrients
Wastewater N concentration
Wastewater P concentration
N requirement per kg algae
P requirement per kg algae
Power consumption
Circulation, raceway ponds
Circulation, PBRs
Flue gas compression
Motor electrical efficiency
Pump isentropic efficiency
Pump mechanical efficiency
a
b

100 ha
30 %
35 %
35 %
C6 H10 O5
C44.7 H79.7 O5.0
C1.9 H3.8 ON0.5
9%

[7]
[7]

3.3 kg m2
5.3 kg m2
8.2 kg m2
13 kg m2
2050 MJ m2
1280 MJ m2
2.3 mol J1

[11]

13 %
1.8 kg
80 %
0.042 kg m3
0.005 kg m3
0.06 kg
0.005 kg
1 W m2
100 W m3
0.5 bar
0.95
0.7
0.8

[21, 22]
[23, 24, 25]

Dewatering (kg1 removed water)

Thickening solids content
2%
Thickening cell recovery
95 %
Filter press solids content
25 %
Filter press: electricity
3.2 kJ kg1
[4, 5, 6]
Filter press cell recovery
85 %
Drying: heat
3.6 MJ kg1
[8, 5]
Drying: electricity
0.3 MJ kg1
[8, 5]
Drying cell recovery
100 %
Combustion
Solids content
45 %
Boiler efficiency
85 %
Gasification (energy consumption as % of output energy)
FT synthesis electricity
27 %
[9]
Methanation electricity
10 %
[10]
Lipid extraction and transesterification (kg1 algae)
Dry route solids content
85 %
[12]
Dry extraction efficiency
95 %
[13, 14]
Wet route solids content
30 %
[12]
Wet extraction efficiency
85 %
[13, 14]
Heat consumption
2.0 MJ kg1
[15, 16, 17]
Electricity consumption
0.5 MJ kg1
[15, 16, 17]
Digestion (kg1 algae)
Volatile solids destruction
50 %
[18, 19]
Heat consumption
0.39 MJ kg1
[20]
Electricity consumption
2.5 MJ kg1
[20]
Gas upgrading: electricity 0.30 MJ kg1
[20]
Fermentation + distillation (l1 ethanol)
Ethanol yield per kg algae 0.35 kg
[26]
Heat consumption
10 MJ l1
[27]
Electricity consumption
3.5 MJ l1
[27]

Averaged composition for multiple species

Calculated for Central European conditions

maximum, 9.1 MJ m2 d1 photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). Light emitting diode (LED) technology is
employed in light provision.
Electricity consumption in cultivation is selected to be
1 W m2 in raceway ponds and 100 W m3 in tubular photobioreactors, as representative values of achievable consumption with existing technologies. For photobioreactors,
it is further assumed that the system would consist of one
row of photobioreactor tubes each 60 cm and each row contains 40 tubes with 28 mm internal diameter [28] thus
resulting in 4.1 W m2 areal power consumption. Heating
and cooling requirement is excluded, as the growth data
already accounts for productivity fluctuations.
Energy consumption in flue gas input can be estimated
from flue gas demand and theoretical power demand in
air compression. Isentropic power requirement in ideal gas
compression is calculated from

Ps = p1 V 1
1

p2
p1

(1)/

constant of gas. Electrical power demand Pe is then

Pe =

(2)

where s is compressor isentropic efficiency, e electrical

efficiency and m mechanical efficiency of drivetrain. Exact
required pressure depends on transfer distance, aeration
device properties and optimization between electricity usage and capital costs in pipe construction, but in these
calculations 0.5 bar over-pressure is employed.
Power requirement in fluid pumping is dependent on
pumping distances and system configuration. To get a
rough value for energy consumption, typical dimensioning
criteria are used for evaluation. Power demand in pumping
is calculated with basic hydrodynamics: pressure loss p
in pipes is the sum of dynamic and static pressure losses


1
L X
p = v 2 +
,
(3)
2
D

!
1

Ps
,
s e m

(1)
and the isentropic power requirement is then calculated
from pressure loss and volumetric flow rate of fluid V :

where p1 and p2 are pressure before and after compression,

V 1 volume flow of gas before compression and isentropic

P = V p .

(4)

Electrical power demand is again calculated with Equa- Table II: Assumptions for different gasification configurations; SCWG denotes supercritical water gasifier
tion (2). In Equation (3) is liquid density, v average flow
speed, friction factor,
L
length
and
D
hydraulic
diameter
P
Gasifier
SCWG SCWG
Air
of the channel, and
is the sum of loss coefficients.
Temperature
Pressure
Solids content in feed
Equivalence ratio

2.2 Product pathways

In this study, following alternative process paths are analysed:
1. combustion of algae

C
MPa
%

500
24
20

700
24
2

800
0.1
85
0.2

reducing the amount of energy used for evaporating the

moisture in feedstock:

2. thermal gasification of algae in a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) gasifier or supercritical water gasifier
(SCWG) and further processing of product gas to

qL, wet = qL u l ,

(8)

where heating value is reported based on dry mass flow (kg

dry matter). Moisture ratio u (kg water / kg dry matter)
in Equation (8) can be calculated from total solids content
b) methane
y as
1y
3. extraction of algal lipids from dry or wet algae, folu=
.
(9)
y
lowed by conversion to fatty acid esters (biodiesel),
while residual matter is
2.2.2 Thermal gasification
a) digested in order to produce methane
Two different gasification technologies are considered: air
b) fermented to ethanol.
gasification in a fluidized bed gasifier and supercritical
Cultivated algae are dewatered into appropriate total water gasification. After gasification, the product gas is
solids content for post-processing by first harvesting with reformed either into FischerTropsch liquids (biodiesel) or
sedimentation, then mechanical dewatering with filter methane.
Algae gasification is modelled in Aspen Plus software.
presses and finally thermal drying, if required. Table I
lists all initial assumptions for post-processing pathways. Gas composition is calculated in equilibrium state by minimizing the Gibbs energy. Theoretical analysis of supercritical water gasification suggests that hydrogen yield
2.2.1 Direct combustion
increases with temperature, while methane production is
In this scenario, algal biomass is co-fired in a CHP plant favoured at lower temperatures (< 600 C); pressure has
boiler at 45 % solids content. Achieved thermal power Q little effect to product gas composition [30]. Therefore,
is calculated from algae dry matter flow rate m,
heating when methane is wanted as end product, supercritical water
value q and boiler efficiency b as
gasification is performed at 500 C at 20 % solids content
and when synthesis gas for FischerTropsch synthesis is
m
q

Q=
.
(5) desired, gasification is performed at 700 C and 2 % solids
b
content. These values are selected based on initial modelling as starting points, and to represent extreme values for
Boiler efficiency of 85 % is employed in the calculations. A
energy consumption. For fluidized bed gasification, 800 C
non-condensing boiler is utilized, in which case the latent
is chosen [31], and equivalence ratio 0.2 is selected. A
heat in water vapour is lost.
heat exchanger with recuperation efficiency of 0.7 is used
Heat of combustion can be determined from elemental
in the modelled system for heat recovery. The modelled
composition of the fuel and experimental correlations.
systems are in energy balance and external heating/cooling
Higher heating value qH is calculated using correlation
is provided if necessary. Investigated operation conditions
are shown in Table II.
qH = (3.55 C2 232 C 2230 H + 51.2 C H
Product gas is reformed either into biodiesel or methane.
+ 131 N + 20600) kJ kg1 , (6) Biodiesel is produced via FischerTropsch synthesis, where
ideally long straight-chaing carbon molecules are formed
where C, H and N are mass percentages of the respective [32]:
element in biomass [29]. Lower heating value qL , which
CO + 2.15 H2 hydrocarbons + H2 O .
(10)
takes into account energy loss with water vapour, is calcuWatergas shift reaction
lated from higher heating value as
CO + H2 O CO2 + H2
(11)
MH2 O H
qL = qH
l,
(7)
2 MH 100
is employed to balance the CO/H2 ratio in the product
gas. In the other alternative, methane is produced via
where M is molar mass, l heat of evaporation for water methanation reaction
and H is mass percentage of hydrogen in burned matter.
Lower heating value for wet biomass is then calculated by
CO + 3 H2 CH4 + H2 O .
(12)
a) FischerTropsch liquids (biodiesel)

For the purposes of this evaluation, total conversion is

assumed and ratio of CO to H2 is balanced with water
gas shift reaction, Equation (11). The difference between
energy inputs and outputs is allocated to heat production
in reforming.
2.2.3 Biodiesel production
In this process alternative, biodiesel is produced from algal
lipids as described by Xu et al. [12]: in dry route algal
mass is dried to 85 % solids content, whereafter lipids Figure 1: Average electricity demand in algae cultivation
per produced dry algae matter. RP: raceway pond,
are extracted extraction and transesterified; in wet route
PBR: photobioreactor
biomass is dried to 30 % solids content, after which cells are
disrupted, lipids are extracted and transesterified similarly
to dry route. Lipid-extracted matter is either digested to
3 Results and discussion
produce methane, or fermented to ethanol.
Biodiesel yield is calculated from lipid content: free fatty
3.1 Algae cultivation
acids are first esterified
Specific electricity consumption in algae cultivation for dif(13) ferent cases is show in Figure 1. Flow circulation accounts
for majority of analyzed energy flows, while flue gas input
where fatty acid and alcohol are reacted to ester and water. and wastewater input consist only a minor part. Where
Triacylglycerides (TAGs) are thereafter transesterified with artificial lighting is utilized, several times more energy is
alcohol to produce esters and glycerine:
consumed in comparison to other parts of the system.
Calculated energy consumption in circulation is 25 %
H2 C O2 CR1
R0 O2 CR1 H2 C OH
to 65 % of chemical energy stored in the biomass (higher
1
HC O2 CR2 + 3 R0 OH R0 O2 CR2 + HC OH . (14) heating value 24 MJ kg ). Results are similar in recent
life cycle assessment studies [1] for raceway ponds, but
values for tubular photobioreactors have been higher than
R0 O2 CR3 H2 C OH
H2 C O2 CR3
what is calculated here: in the referenced studies three
Extraction efficiency depends on the used method and to five times more electricity is used in cultivation than
algal strain. With solvent extraction, most if not all lipids what is recovered as algae energy content. However, those
can be extracted, but the required dryness is very high; with studies had remarkably different initial assumptions, for
wet extraction the yield is lower. For these calculations, example 2500 W m3 energy consumption [22]. There is
95 % extraction efficiency in dry route, and 85 % in wet much room for development even for raceway ponds: if
route is employed.
the energy consumption can be reduced to 0.15 W m2
After lipid extraction, residue is either digested or fer- level suggested by Quinn et al. [3], energy consumption
mented. Methane production in algal residue digestion is in circulation would decrease to less than 10 % of algae
energy content.
calculated using theoretical reaction equation
For artificial lighting, 700 kW h m2 of electricity would


have to be provided annually to keep irradiance at yearly
a b 3c
Cn H a O b N c + n
H2 O
maximum level. Marginal electricity consumption in addi4 2
4




tional algae production is 500 MJ kg1 in photobioreactors
n a b 3c
n a b 3c

+
+ +
CH4 +
CO2 and 1400 MJ kg1 in raceway ponds. This makes no sense
2 8 4
8
2 8 4
8
energetically: only 4.4 % of input electricity is converted
RCO2 H + R0 OH RCO2 R0 + H2 O ,

+ c NH3 , (15) to algae chemical energy in photobioreactors and 1.8 % in

raceway ponds. Improvement in lighting technology will
where coefficients a, b, c and n are determined from car- decrease the electricity requirement, but the most dombohydrate and protein composition [33]. Due to cell wall inant factor is the photosynthetic conversion efficiency of
resistance and inadequate residence time in the reactor, algae. Artificial lighting may be profitable if the product
only a fraction of the input matter can be degraded to price and the benefits from increased plant utilization rate
methane. Here, 50 % volatile solids destruction in digestion can cover the electricity costs, but with current electricity
is employed.
prices artificial lighting would result in over 4 e kg1 algae
In fermentation, simple sugars are converted to ethanol marginal cost increase in photobioreactors and 11 e kg1
in open ponds.
and carbon dioxide:
C6 H12 O6 2 C2 H5 OH + 2 CO2 .

(16)

3.2 Product pathways

35 % ethanol mass yield is used, with similar energy con- Mass and energy outputs associated with each product
sumption as in corn ethanol production.
pathway are presented in Figure 2. Total energy output

Figure 2: Mass and energy outputs with different end

product cases. Left columns indicate product output,
and right columns energy output per algae dry matter
input. SCWG: supercritical water gasification.

Figure 4: Heat and electricity consumption in different

pathways, from open pond cultivation without artificial lighting. Negative heat consumption denotes
heat generation in gas reforming reactions. SCWG:
supercritical water gasification.

processing pathways are presented in Figure 4 as a share

of output energy content. In most cases algae drying is the
largest heat consumer and the used energy can be more
than 50 % of what can be recovered as end product energy
flow. Identified large heat consumption may be economically prohibitive, and hence the heat should be either of low
cost or processes with high thermal load should be avoided.
Cost of heat at a site where electricity is co-generated
reduces with decreasing temperature level. Large amount
of heat that is consumed in drying can possibly be utilized
at a low temperature level, but the required drying temperature increases with increasing solids content. Usage
of low pressure steam may be necessary for a part of the
evaporation, and especially gasification reactors consume
heat at a high temperature level. Further heat integration
assessment and economic analysis are required to determine the economical feasibility. A majority of the electricity
consumption originates from algae cultivation. Therefore
optimization of flow parameters, thus searching for optimal
trade-off between algal growth and electricity consumption,
is a necessity for bringing down the electricity consumption
and a prerequisite for making algae-based fuel production
feasible.
Where FischerTropsch synthesis, methanation and processing to ethanol are used, they are the major electricity
consumers after cultivation. Dewatering follows aforemen-

Figure 3: Heat and electricity consumption in algae dewatering, per produced dry algae matter. SCWG: supercritical water gasification.

from different product paths are on the same level, and the
calculated higher heating value for dry algae (24 MJ kg1 ).
However, energy output with biodiesel from supercritical
water gasification and FischerTropsch synthesis exceeds
this value. This is likely due to disassociation of water
and hydrogen exiting the reactor in gaseous form, thus increasing product gas energy content. The required energy
originates from heat and electricity input to the gasifier.
Energy output from combustion is lowest from the alternatives, followed by methane from air gasification.
Energy requirement in dewatering is shown in Figure 3.
It is evident that the heat consumption in drying is the
main energy consumer and the mechanical dewatering
processes have only a minor significance to the energy
consumption. Highest energy consumption, 10 MJ kg1
algae dry matter, occurs in dry lipid extraction and air
gasification pathways, where desired moisture content is
85 %.
Total heat and electricity consumption for post-

tioned, but the associated electricity consumption in dewatering is 5 % of output energy flow or less in all cases.
Heat consumption in supercritical water gasification at
2 % solids content (in the case where biodiesel is produced)
is very high due to large volumes of water heated up before
gasification. Supercricital water gasification at 20 % solids
content seems much more favourable in the light of these
findings. However, synthesis gas production from algae
via supercritical water gasification should not be ruled
out and some other process conditions may result in a
much more favourable energy balance. An optimization of
gasification parameters with regard to total energy balance
will be necessary in the future, accompanied with actual
experiments.
In addition to energy-related outputs, carbon dioxide is
released in gasification, digestion and fermentation. The
amount is smaller but still significant in comparison to the
CO2 amount consumed by algae in cultivation: approximately 25 % to 55 % equivalent amount of consumed CO2 is
released in gasification pathways, and approximately 15 %
in lipid extraction based pathways. In biodiesel production 10 % to 15 % of biodiesel output equivalent mass has
to be provided as methanol or ethanol for transesterification, but in the case where algal residue is fermented,
over five times as much ethanol is produced as would be
consumed in lipid transesterification. Approximately 10 %
equivalent of biodiesel mass is recovered as glycerine in
transesterification.

(a) Open pond

(b) Tubular photobioreactor

3.3 Total balance

Combined energy balances for each case are shown in
Figure 5. In each subfigure, energy flows in products
as well as total electricity and heat demand are shown,
alongside with energy return on energy input
EROEI =

Eout
.
Ein

(17)

(c) Open pond with additional lighting

For product paths with only energy products, it is desirable

that EROEI > 1. Since consumption of low temperature
level heat in a CHP plant is desired, and low-temperature
heat also is generally of lower value than electricity, EROEI
for electricity input only is also displayed in Figure 5. Digestion consumes heat at a low temperature level and
evaporation at mid-temperature ( 100 C), whereas gasification requires heat at several hundreds C.
In Figure 5, EROEI < 1 for all cases apart from that,
in which algal biomass is cultivated in open ponds, is further gasified in supercritical water and the gas is reformed
to methane. If only electricity consumption is taken into
account, energy balance becomes slightly positive for all
cases where algae are cultivated in open ponds. While
supercritical water gasification/methanation pathway has
the highest ratio of energy output to input, the process
(d) Tubular photobioreactor with additional lighting
equipment is likely to be prohibitively costly. Lipid extraction pathways are possibly the best overall alternatives
Figure 5: Energy balances for each studied cultivation
because of tried technology, heat demand at low/medium
setup and product pathway. Right axis displays the
temperature level and high biomass-to-energy conversion
energy return on energy input (EROEI) for total enefficiency.
ergy consumption and electricity only. SCWG: superDifferences between Figures 5a and 5b repeat what could
critical water gasification.
already be seen in Figure 1: electricity consumption in

photobioreactors is significantly higher than in raceway

ponds, due to greater specific energy consumption. Photobioreactors can sustain greater product yield from the same
land area, but the larger investment cost that is inherent to
photobioreactors might discourage building such systems
for fuel production only.
Artificial lighting increases annual product output by
approximately 65 %, but the associated electricity consumption makes production energetically infeasible: in
open ponds, energy input is 27 to 48 times larger than
product output and in photobioreactors still 12 to 20 times
larger. Artificial lighting can be justified if the product
value is significantly higher than electricity cost, but with
only energy outputs the cost of electricity input cannot be
regained from the products.
The scale of production is significantly smaller than
thermal output of a combined heat and power plant: energy
inputs and outputs in calculated cases are in the order of
1 MW to 10 MW, whereas power plants range from tens
to hundreds of megawatts. Heat for the processes can
hence be supplied from a CHP plant. An increase in CHP
plant thermal load enables an increase in the electricity
production, and enhances the utilization rate of the boiler.
In contrast, the area for algae cultivation in this study
(100 ha) is somewhat large and the usable area may restrict
the production amounts.

[2] A. J. Dassey, S. G. Hall and C. S. Theegala. An

analysis of energy consumption for algal biodiesel
production: Comparing the literature with current
estimates. Algal Research 4 (2014) 8995. doi: 10.
1016/j.algal.2013.12.006.
[3] J. C. Quinn et al. Microalgae to biofuels lifecycle
assessment Multiple pathway evaluation. Algal
Research 4 (2013) 116122. doi: 10.1016/j.algal.
2013.11.002.
[4] H. F. Mohn. Experiences and Strategies in the Recovery of Biomass from Mass Cultures of Microalgae.
In: S. G. and S. C. J. Algae Biomass. Amsterdam,
the Netherlands: Elsevier, 1980.
[5] G. Shelef, A. Sukenik and M. Green. Microalgae
Harvesting and Processing: A Literature Review.
A Subcontract Report. Tech. rep. SERI/STR-2312396. Haifa, Israel: Techinion Research and Development Foundation, Aug. 1984. 70 pp. doi: 10.2172/
6204677.
[6] E. Molina Grima et al. Recovery of microalgal biomass and metabolites: process options and economics.
Biotechnology Advances 20(78) (2003) 491515. doi:
10.1016/S0734-9750(02)00050-2.
[7] B. Sialve, N. Bernet and O. Bernard. Anaerobic digestion of microalgae as a necessary step to make
microalgal biodiesel sustainable. Biotechnology Advances 27(4) (2009) 409416. doi: 10 . 1016 / j .
biotechadv.2009.03.001.

4 Conclusions

In the studied product pathways, energy outputs are on

[8] C. J. Soeder and F. H. Mohn. Technologische Aspekte
the same level, but the energy consumption between proder Mikroalgenkultur. German. In: Berichte ber
cesses differ. Most heat is required in evaporation, and
die 24 Vortrge des Symposiums 20. und 21. Mrz
correspondingly most electricity is consumed in algae cul1975. I. Symposium Mikrobielle Proteingewinnung.
tivation. Optimization of process parameters and more
Ed. by F. Wagner. Gesellschaft fr Biotechnologische
experimental data are required for all cases. Supercricital
Forschung, 1975 9199.
water gasification of algae followed by product gas meth[9] P. McKeough and E. Kurkela. Process evaluations
anation is energetically the most favourable pathway, while
and design studies in the UCG project 20042007.
lipid extraction pathways are likely to be more economic.
Research Notes 2434. Espoo, Finland: VTT Technical
Utilization of lipid-extracted residue is important for the
Research Centre of Finland, 2008. 45 pp. url: http:
total process. Artificial lighting increases annual product
//www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2008/T2434.
output, but it is not sensible if only fuels are produced.
pdf (visited on 10/04/2014).
Reduction of energy consumption is required to enhance
the production feasibility. A part of the heat requirement [10] S. Heyne, M. C. Seemann and S. Harvey. Integration
can be fulfilled with from low-cost sources, but a more
study for alternative methanation technologies for
detailed heat integration study is required to verify the
the production of synthetic natural gas from gasiinfluence on operational costs. Daily production fluctuation
fied biomass. In: Chemical Engineering Transactions.
needs to be determined in future studies, as well as the
13th International Conference on Process Integranecessity of active temperature control.
tion, PRES 2010. Ed. by J. J. Kleme, H. L. Lam
and P. S. Varbanov. Vol. 21. 2010 409414. doi:
10.3303/CET1021069.

References

[1] R. Slade and A. Bauen. Micro-algae cultivation for

biofuels: Cost, energy balance, environmental impacts and future prospects. Biomass and Bioenergy
53 (2013) 2938. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.
12.019.

[11] Royal Philips N.V. Horticulture LED Solutions.

GreenPower LED toplighting. Jan. 2015. url: http:
/ / www . lighting . philips . com / content / dam /
b2b - li / en _ AA / products / Horticulture /
Horticulture- products/pdf/PHIL_143043_CL_
Toplighting _ UK _ A05 _ spreads . pdf (visited on
13/05/2015).

[12] L. Xu et al. Assessment of a dry and a wet route [24] F. G. Acin Fernndez, J. M. Fernndez Sevilla and E.
for the production of biofuels from microalgae: EnMolina Grima. Photobioreactors for the production
ergy balance analysis. Bioresource Technology 102(8)
of microalgae. Reviews in Environmental Science and
(2011) 51135122. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.
Bio/Technology 12(2) (2013) 131151. doi: 10.1007/
01.066.
s11157-012-9307-6.
[13] A. Sathish and R. C. Sims. Biodiesel from mixed [25] F. G. Acin et al. Production cost of a real microalculture algae via a wet lipid extraction procedure.
gae production plant and strategies to reduce it. BiBioresource Technology 118 (2012) 643647. doi:
otechnology Advances 30(6) (2012) 13441353. doi:
10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.118.
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.02.005.
[14] M. Chen et al. Subcritical co-solvents extraction of [26] R. Harun, M. K. Danquah and G. M. Forde. Milipid from wet microalgae pastes of Nannochloropsis
croalgal biomass as a fermentation feedstock for
sp. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technobioethanol production. Journal of Chemical Techlogy 114(2) (2012) 205212. doi: 10 . 1002 / ejlt .
nology & Biotechnology 85(2) (2010) 199203. doi:
201100120.
10.1002/jctb.2287.
[15] L. Batan et al. Net Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emis- [27] P. W. Gallagher and H. Shapouri. Improving Sussion Evaluation of Biodiesel Derived from Microalgae.
tainability of the Corn-Ethanol Industry. In: Biofuels.
Environmental Science & Technology 44(20) (2010)
Ed. by W. Soetaert and E. J. Vandamme. Chichester,
79757980. doi: 10.1021/es102052y.
UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009. Chap. 12 223
234.
doi: 10.1002/9780470754108.ch12.
[16] A. L. Stephenson et al. Life-Cycle Assessment of
Potential Algal Biodiesel Production in the United [28] C. J. Hulatt and D. N. Thomas. Energy efficiency of
Kingdom: A Comparison of Raceways and Air-Lift
an outdoor microalgal photobioreactor sited at midTubular Bioreactors. Energy & Fuels 24(7) (2010)
temperate latitude. Bioresource Technology 102(12)
40624077. doi: 10.1021/ef1003123.
(2011) 66876695. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.
03.098.
[17] L. Lardon et al. Life-Cycle Assessment of Biodiesel
Production from Microalgae. Environmental Science [29] A. Friedl et al. Prediction of heating values of biomass
& Technology 43(17) (2009) 64756481. doi: 10 .
fuel from elemental composition. Analytica Chimica
1021/es900705j.
Acta 544(12) (2005) 191198. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.
2005.01.041.
[18] C. G. Golueke, W. J. Oswald and H. B. Gotaas.
Anaerobic Digestion of Algae. Applied Microbiology [30] J. A. M. Withag et al. System model for gasification
5(1) (Jan. 1957) 4755. url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.
of biomass model compounds in supercritical water
nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1057253/ (visited on
A thermodynamic analysis. The Journal of Super19/07/2012).
critical Fluids 61 (2012) 157166. doi: 10.1016/j.
supflu.2011.10.012.
[19] X. Yuan et al. Microalgae Growth Using
High-Strength Wastewater Followed by An- [31] K.-C. Yang et al. Co-gasification of woody biomass
aerobic Co-Digestion. Water Environment Reand microalgae in a fluidized bed. Journal of the
search 84(5) (2012) 396404. doi: 10 . 2175 /
Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 44(6) (2013)
106143011X13233670703242.
10271033. doi: 10.1016/j.jtice.2013.06.026.
[20] P. Collet et al. Life-cycle assessment of microalgae [32] M. E. Dry. The FischerTropsch process: 19502000.
culture coupled to biogas production. Bioresource
Catalysis Today 71(34) (2002) 227241. doi: 10.
Technology 102(1) (2011) 207214. doi: 10.1016/j.
1016/S0920-5861(01)00453-9.
biortech.2010.06.154.
[33] G. Parkin and W. Owen. Fundamentals of Anaerobic
[21] J. L. Mendoza et al. Fluid-dynamic characterization
Digestion of Wastewater Sludges. Journal of Envirof real-scale raceway reactors for microalgae produconmental Engineering 112(5) (1986) 867920. doi:
tion. Biomass and Bioenergy 54 (2013) 267275. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1986)112:5(867).
10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.03.017.
[22] O. Jorquera et al. Comparative energy life-cycle analyses of microalgal biomass production in open ponds
and photobioreactors. Bioresource Technology 101(4)
(2010) 14061413. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.
09.038.
[23]

F. G. Acin Fernndez et al. Airlift-driven externalloop tubular photobioreactors for outdoor production
of microalgae: assessment of design and performance.
Chemical Engineering Science 56(8) (2001) 2721
2732. doi: 10.1016/S0009-2509(00)00521-2.