ALGAE BIOMASS IN SPAIN: A CASE STUDY

ALGAE BIOMASS IN SPAIN:A CASE STUDY

Emilio Molina GrimaDpt. Chemical Engineering, University of Almería, SPAIN

[email protected]

"3rd European Maritime Day Stakeholder Conference",

Renewable Energy and the Sea - Technological Innovation18-21 May 2010. Gijòn, Spain

23rd European Maritime Conference

Dpt. Chem. Eng.Univ. Almería

1. Feasibility of microalgae biofuel

2. Current scenario

3. Case study: cost analysis

4. Improving the energy prospect of algae

5. Challenges in decreasing cost

6. Recommendations

Outline



United States biodiesel needs = 0.53 billion m3 (to replace all transport fuel)Crop Oil yield

(L/ha) Land area needed (M ha)

Percent of existing US cropping area

Corn 172 3,080 1,692 Soybean 446 1,188 652 Canola 1,190 446 244 Jatropha 1,892 280 154 Coconut 2,689 198 108 Oil palm 5,950 90 48 Microalgae 35,202 15.2 8 Microalgae 70,405 7.6 4

Microalgae 35,202 15.2 8 Microalgae 70,405 7.6 4

Not feasible

Feasibility of algal biodiesel(Y. Chisty, 2007. Biotechnol. Adv.)

Microalgaec 18,750 28.2 15.0Microalgaed 17,330 30.6 16.3

a

b

a, 20% w/w oil in biomassb, 40% w/w oil in biomassc, Phaeodactylum tricornutum 20% oil in biomass, 5glipids/m2·day. Acién Fernández et al., (1998)d, Scenedesmus almeriensis, 16% oil in biomass. Fernández Sevilla et al., (2008)e, Nannochloropsis sp. Two-step process 200 mgoil/L·day, 9.5 gbiomass/m2·day, Rodolfi et al., (2009)f, Nannochloropsis sp. Two-step process tropical area, Rodolfi et al (2009)

Optimistic valuesProved values

1) Feasibility of microalgae biofuel

Microalgaee 23,500 20.9 11Microalgaef 35,300 15.2 8

ProvedEstimated


Dpt. Chem. Eng.Univ. AlmeríaSmall scale facilities

(Acién Fernández et al., 1998, Biotechnol. Bioeng.)

Sea water220 L airlift tubular photobioreactorPhaeodactylum tricornutum18,750 L oil /ha·year


Description of the system

(Rodolfi et al., 2009, Biotechnol. Bioeng.)

Sea water110 L flat panel photobioreactorNannochlropsis sp.23.500 L oil /ha·year



Description of the system

Large scale facilities

Freshwater4,000 L tubular photobioreactorScenedesmus almeriensis17,330 L oil/ha·year




biomassresidueoiloiloil 1 EBEBxEBx

Energy balance

Biomass annual productivity, B ≈ 100 tons ha1

Biomass energy content, Ebiomass ≈ 17,000 MJ ton1

Energy in algal oil, Eoil ≈ 38,000 MJ ton1

Experimentaldata

Total energyin biomass

Total energyin oil-free biomass

Total energyin algal oil

sunlightesisphotosynthbiomass EPEB Phot.Efficiency2.78% Global5.56% PAR

Radiation PAR(30,511 GJ ha1)

Energy in residue, Eresidue ≈ 11,750 MJ ton1

Overall energy data

What is the current scenario?

2) Current scenario



100100% impinging total radiation

50% photosynthetic active radiation

35% absorbed by pigments

26% active in photochemistry

8% energy in synthesized carbohydrates

55% net stored energy

ENERGY REMAINING

infrared radiation (50%)

reflexion, transmission, unspecific absorption (30%)

conversion into photochemically active radiation (25%)

conversion into chemical energy (70%)

photoinhibition, respiration, photorespiration (40%)

ENERGY LOSSES

Efficiency in the conversion of sunlight into organic matter

Solar efficiency

2) Current scenario



ENERGY COST

Maximum energy conversion achievable

Maximum achievable

Direct PAR

30,511 GJ ha-1

Biomass

180-200 Tn ha-1

Oil

40 tn ha-1

CHALLENGE

2) Current scenario



3.25

m

2.2

m

19.0 m

3.25

m

2.2

m

19.0 m

3.25

m

2.2

m

19.0 m

Volume = 10 units x 3.0 m3 = 30 m3

Height 2.2 m, lenght 20 mSeparation between reactors: 1.4 mSurface occupation =20 m2

(40) per PBRVolume to surface ratio = 70 L/m2

Photobioreactor engineering features

Case study: Tubular photobioreactor

3) Case study



Culture mediumPhotobioreactors

Centrifugation

Lyophylization

Control unit

Dry biomass

Overall process

3) Case study




600W/ m3Power consumption0.1v/ v/ minAir flow rate

0.351/ dayDilution rate6.5MTbiomass/ annunBiomass production capacity

8h/ dayOperation time300Day/ annunOperation time

0.700g/ LdayBiomass productivity

600W/ m3Power consumption0.1v/ v/ minAir flow rate

0.351/ dayDilution rate6.5MTbiomass/ annunBiomass production capacity

8h/ dayOperation time300Day/ annunOperation time

0.700g/ LdayBiomass productivity

Production cost

3) Case study


EQUIPMENT AND COSTS (€)Detail Capacity Cost €/und. No. of units Total cost1.- Photobioreactors 3.0 m3 15,000.00 10 150,000.00 2.- Decanter 3.0 m3/h 33,750.00 1 33,750.00 3.- Medium filter unit 3.0 m3/h 600.00 1 600.00 4.- Medium pump 3.0 m3/h 600.00 1 600.00 5.- Medium storage tank 3.0 m3 600.00 1 600.00 6.- Harvest storage tank 3.0 m3 600.00 1 600.00 7.- Harvest pump 3.0 m3/h 600.00 1 600.00 8.- Air blower 600.0 m3/h 9,000.00 1 9,000.00 9.- Harvest biomass conveyer belts/pump 3.0 m3/h 600.00 1 600.00 10.- CO2 supply unit 10.0 Kg/h 2,000.00 1 2,000.00 11.- Weight station 20.0 Kg/h 4,000.00 1 4,000.00 12.- Biomass storage 120.0 m3 12,000.00 1 12,000.00 Total (€) 214,350.00



Production cost

3) Case study


Fix capital Detail Factor Cost, €1 Major purchased equipment 1 214,350 2 Installation costs 0.10 21,435 3 Instrumentation and control 0.10 21,435 4 Piping 0.05 10,718 5 Electrical 0.05 10,718 6 Buildings 0.10 21,435 7 Yard improvements 0.10 21,435 8 Service facilities 0.10 21,435 9 Land accomplishment 0.06 12,861

10 Engineering and supervision 0.10 21,435 11 Construction expenses 0.10 35,582 12 Contractor's fee 0.05 17,791 13 Contingency 0.06 21,349

Total fix capital412,838.10

Fix capital per annun Cost, €Lifetime 10Depreciation 39,140.31 Property tax (@ 0.01 depreciation) 0.01 391.40 Insurance (@ 0.006 depreciation) 0.006 234.84 Purchase tax (@ 0.16 of items 1-12/10) 0.16 6,605.41

Total fix capital per annun 46,371.96 €Raw materials Units €/und. Cost, € 9,966.67 €Culture medium (m3) 3250.00 1.00 3,250.00 Carbon dioxide (kg) 16250.00 0.40 6,500.00 Medium esterilization filters 108.33 2.00 216.67 Utilities 13,371.43 €Water (m3) 3250.00 - - Power consumption (Kwh) 133714.29 0.10 13,371.43 Others Units €/und. Cost, € 94,345.60 €Labor 1.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 Supervision 0.20 6,000.00 Payroll charges 0.25 9,000.00 Maintenance 0.04 8,574.00 Operating supplies 0.00 1,114.62 General plant overheads 0.55 24,515.70 Tax 0.16 7,834.95 Contingency 0.01 2,786.55 Marketing 0.01 4,519.78

Total direct production costs (€) 117,683.70 €Total production costs (€) 164,055.66 €Unit cost of producing biomass (€/kg) 25.24 €



MAJOR EQUIPMENTS

Economic analysis

3) Case study


28.3%

6.1%8.2%

57.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Depreciation Raw materials Utilities Labor

70.0%

15.7%

4.2%

1.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

1.- Photobioreactors

2.- Decanter

3.- Medium filter unit

4.- Medium pump

5.- Medium storage tank

6.- Harvest storage tank

7.- Harvest pump

8.- Air blower

9.- Harvest biomass conveyer belts/pump

10.- CO2 supply unit

11.- Weight station

12.- Biomass storage



ENERGYENERGY COSTCOST

Major factors to be solved

What is the challenge?

4) Improving the energy prospect of algae

Animal feedOther products

Effluent Fertilizer Irrigation

Algal biomass production

Biomass recovery

Power generation

Biomass extraction

Anaerobic digestion

Algal oil Biodiesel

Biogas

CO2

Water + nutrients

Power togrid

Power to biomass process

LightCO2

H2O/nutrients

Spent biomass

Animal feedOther products

Effluent Fertilizer Irrigation

Algal biomass production

Biomass recovery

Power generationPower generation

Biomass extraction

Anaerobic digestion

Algal oil Biodiesel

Biogas

CO2

Water + nutrients

Power togrid

Power to biomass process

LightCO2

H2O/nutrients

Spent biomass



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50 100 150 200

V/S ratio, L/m2

Bio

mas

s pr

oduc

tivity

, g/

L·da

y

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Bio

mas

s pr

oduc

tivity

, g/

m2·

dayBiomass productivity, g/L·day

Biomass productivity, g/m2·day

Biomass productivity (5%Phot. efficiency)= 54 g/m2·day 200 TM/Ha·year

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Power consumption, W/m3

Ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion,

MJ/

m2·

day

V/S=20 L/m2V/S=50 L/m2V/S=100 L/m2V/S=150 L/m2V/S=200 L/m2

Solar Energy Fixation (5%Photosynthetic efficiency)= 2 MJ/m2·day

Energy source = Sun (250 W/m2)

Considering maximum solar efficiency 5%:•Power consumption<100 W/m3

•V/S<100 L/m2

•Biomass productivity>0.5 g/Lday

Solar radiation and power consumption

Energy balance

4) Improving the energy prospect of algae

Closed photobioreactors

Open photobioreactors

Closed photobioreactors

Open photobioreactors



54.5%

18.6%

4.2%

22.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Depreciation Raw materials Utilities Labor

Specific challenges in decreasing the biomass production costs

Cost analysis

5) Challenges in decreasing cost

CASE STUDY

Ratio V/S m3/m2 0.050

Biomass productivity g/Lday 1.00

Operation time day/year 300

Operation time h/day 12

Biomass production capacity Tn/year 150.0

Dilution rate 1/day 0.4

Air flow rate v/v/min 0.2

Power consumption W/m3 100

Total culture volume m3 500

Total culture surface m2 10000

Detail Capacity Cost €/und. No. of units Total cost 1.- Photobioreactors 5.0 m3 25,000.00 100 2,500,000.00 2.- Decanter 3.0 m3/h 33,750.00 5 168,750.00 3.- Medium filter unit 3.0 m3/h 600.00 5 3,000.00 4.- Medium pump 3.0 m3/h 600.00 5 3,000.00 5.- Medium storage tank 3.0 m3 600.00 5 3,000.00 6.- Harvest storage tank 3.0 m3 600.00 5 3,000.00 7.- Harvest pump 3.0 m3/h 600.00 5 3,000.00 8.- Air blower 600.0 m3/h 9,000.00 10 90,000.00 9.- Harvest biomass conveyer belts/pump 3.0 m3/h 600.00 5 3,000.00 10.- CO2 supply unit 10.0 Kg/h 2,000.00 4 8,000.00 11.- Weight station 20.0 Kg/h 4,000.00 2 8,000.00 12.- Biomass storage 120.0 m3 12,000.00 1 12,000.00

Total (€) 2,804,750.00

Photobioreactor cost, €/L 5Cost of CO2, €/kg 0.25Labor 3Cost of medium, €/m3 0.50

Total production cost, €/kg 4.57 €



4.6 €

3.1 €

2.3 €

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5.0 €/L 2.0 €/L 0.2 €/L

Per

cent

age

- €

1.0 €

2.0 €

3.0 €

4.0 €

5.0 €

6.0 €

7.0 €

Pro

duct

ion

cost

, €k

g

DepreciationRaw materialsUtilitiesLaborCost

Influence of photobioreactor cost

2.3 €

1.9 €

1.7 €

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.25 €/kg 0.10 €/kg 0.00 €/kg

Per

cent

age

- €

0.5 €

1.0 €

1.5 €

2.0 €

2.5 €

Pro

duct

ion

cost

, €/

kg


Influence of CO2 cost

Optimal designMaximum scaleReduction building cost

Photobioreactor cost<1 €/L

Use of flue gasesImproved CO2 supply systemsCO2 cost<0.05 €/kg


Cost analysis




1.7 €

1.4 €

1.1 €

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

3 Men/Ha 2 Men/Ha 1 Men/Ha

Per

cent

age

- €

0.5 €

1.0 €

1.5 €

2.0 €

2.5 €

Pro

duct

ion

cost

, €/

kg


3

Influence of labor

1.1 €1.0 €

0.9 €

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.50 €/m3 0.25 €/m3 0.00 €/m3

Per

cent

age

- €

0.2 €

0.4 €

0.6 €

0.8 €

1.0 €

1.2 €

1.4 €

1.6 €

Pro

duct

ion

cost

, €/

kg


Influence of culture medium

Large facilitiesMaximum automatizationContinuous operationSupervision and maintenanceLabor < 1.0 man/hectare

Use of waste waterWater recycling systemsCulture medium cost<0.1 €/m3

Gre

en

hou

ses

Waste

w

ate

r


Cost analysis




• Assume that high photosynthetic efficiency values achieved under controlled Assume that high photosynthetic efficiency values achieved under controlled laboratory conditions will remain unchanged outdoorslaboratory conditions will remain unchanged outdoors

• Derive productivity estimation from theoretical values or from figures Derive productivity estimation from theoretical values or from figures obtained with small-scale reactors and/or short time intervalsobtained with small-scale reactors and/or short time intervals

• Invoke biomass productivity values per surface unit exceeding the efficiency Invoke biomass productivity values per surface unit exceeding the efficiency limits of photosynthesislimits of photosynthesis

• Calculate (and claim) high areal productivity values on the basis of the Calculate (and claim) high areal productivity values on the basis of the footprint of a reactor unit, instead of considering the surface really occupied footprint of a reactor unit, instead of considering the surface really occupied by the unit in the reactor field by the unit in the reactor field

• Ignore the difficulties of keeping a monoalgal culture outdoors (forgetting Ignore the difficulties of keeping a monoalgal culture outdoors (forgetting

about predators and contaminants)about predators and contaminants)

• Ignore that the technology for mass production of microalgae is new and Ignore that the technology for mass production of microalgae is new and relatively complexrelatively complex

- PLEASE, DO NOT RAISE FALSE EXPECTATIONS- PLEASE, DO NOT RAISE FALSE EXPECTATIONS

- PLEASE, DO NOT TRUST COMPANIES WITH FINANCE AND - PLEASE, DO NOT TRUST COMPANIES WITH FINANCE AND COMMUNICATION EXPERTS, BUT NO (REAL) SCIENTISTSCOMMUNICATION EXPERTS, BUT NO (REAL) SCIENTISTS

6) Recommendations

What should be avoided?



• Find or develop the top microalgae, with high productivity outdoors, Find or develop the top microalgae, with high productivity outdoors, harvestability, resistence to contamination, tolerance to high oxygen harvestability, resistence to contamination, tolerance to high oxygen levels and extreme temperature and elevated yields of either levels and extreme temperature and elevated yields of either carbohydrates or lipids, suitable as feedstock for ethanol or biodiesel, carbohydrates or lipids, suitable as feedstock for ethanol or biodiesel, respectivelyrespectively

• Develop appropriate reactors, with low manufacture and operation costs Develop appropriate reactors, with low manufacture and operation costs

• Verify productivity values at reasonable scale (demonstration plant) and Verify productivity values at reasonable scale (demonstration plant) and throughout a complete annual cycle (at least)throughout a complete annual cycle (at least)

• Ensure adequacy of the energy balance for the process. How much fossil Ensure adequacy of the energy balance for the process. How much fossil energy is required in relation to that contained in the generated biofuel?energy is required in relation to that contained in the generated biofuel?

• Design an integral management of nutrients (CO2 from flue gases as Design an integral management of nutrients (CO2 from flue gases as source of C, recycling of culture medium, waste water, etc.)source of C, recycling of culture medium, waste water, etc.)

R&DWhat should be done?

6) Recommendations



• Design an integral use of the generated biomass, that envisage full Design an integral use of the generated biomass, that envisage full utilization of the material left upon extraction of the feedstockutilization of the material left upon extraction of the feedstock

• Since marine microalgae oil content is superior to freshwater Since marine microalgae oil content is superior to freshwater microalgae, and the lipid hydrogenation technology is a cheap, easy microalgae, and the lipid hydrogenation technology is a cheap, easy and fully developed technology, we should study the feasibility and and fully developed technology, we should study the feasibility and scalability of growing algae offshore.scalability of growing algae offshore.

• Test the feasibility of heterotrophic growth (dark fermentation) of Test the feasibility of heterotrophic growth (dark fermentation) of microalgae as a near-term route of biodiesel productionmicroalgae as a near-term route of biodiesel production

IN THIS WAY, PROMISING TECHNOLOGIES FOR BIOFUEL IN THIS WAY, PROMISING TECHNOLOGIES FOR BIOFUEL FROM MICROALGAE MAY BE DEVELOPED FROM MICROALGAE MAY BE DEVELOPED

OTHERWISE, CREDIT CAN BE LOST WHEN UNPROVEN OTHERWISE, CREDIT CAN BE LOST WHEN UNPROVEN (FALSE) EXPECTATIONS ARE NOT ACHIEVED(FALSE) EXPECTATIONS ARE NOT ACHIEVED

R&DWhat should be done?

6) Recommendations

Dpt. Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Almería, SPAIN

Inst. Bioq. Veg. FotosíntesisCSIC, Sevilla, SPAIN

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

http://www.acciona.es/

Documents

ALGAE BIOMASS IN SPAIN: A CASE STUDY