| Literature DB >> 35418157 |
Matthew Wiatrowski1, Bruno C Klein2, Ryan W Davis3, Carlos Quiroz-Arita3, Eric C D Tan2, Ryan W Hunt4, Ryan E Davis2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microalgae possess numerous advantages for use as a feedstock in producing renewable fuels and products, with techno-economic analysis (TEA) frequently used to highlight the economic potential and technical challenges of utilizing this biomass in a biorefinery context. However, many historical TEA studies have focused on the conversion of biomass with elevated levels of carbohydrates and lipids and lower levels of protein, incurring substantial burdens on the ability to achieve high cultivation productivity rates relative to nutrient-replete, high-protein biomass. Given a strong dependence of algal biomass production costs on cultivation productivity, further TEA assessment is needed to understand the economic potential for utilizing potentially lower-cost but lower-quality, high-protein microalgae for biorefinery conversion.Entities:
Keywords: Biofuels; Bioproducts; Conversion; High-protein; Microalgae; Techno-economic assessment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35418157 PMCID: PMC8764804 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-021-02098-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels Bioprod ISSN: 2731-3654
Fig. 1Process flow diagrams of biorefineries assessed in this study: a MOTU pathway and b MA pathway. Green blocks represent unit operations that are shared between pathways. Orange and blue boxes refer to sections specific to MOTU and MA, respectively. Dashed lines represent a fluctuating diversion of flow based on seasonal variability
Key techno-economic metrics of the assessed biorefining pathways
| MOTU | MA | |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum solid coproduct selling price ($/dry ton) to support $2.5/GGE fuel price | $1033 | $899 |
| Fuel yield (GGE/AFDW ton) | 34.9 | 44.6 |
| Fuel yield (MMGGE/yr) | 6.6 (0.3 naphtha, 6.3 diesel) | 8.4 (6.9 alcohols, 1.5 FAFE) |
| Fuel C/O molar ratio | n/a (negligible oxygen content) | 5.1 (4.6 alcohols, 11.3 FAFE) |
| Solid coproduct yield (lb/AFDW ton) | 1009 | 1009 |
| Polyurethane coproduct yield (lb/AFDW ton) | 254 (140)a | 254 (140)a |
| Carbon utilization (% of algal carbon) | ||
| Fuel | 19.6% | 25.2% |
| Naphtha | 0.9% | – |
| Diesel | 18.7% | – |
| Mixed alcohols fuel | – | 20.6% |
| FAFE | – | 4.6% |
| Solid coproduct | 38.2% | 38.2% |
| Polyurethane (algal carbon only) | 11.0% | 11.0% |
| Total | 68.9% | 74.4% |
| Revenue breakdown (% of total) | ||
| Fuel | 7% | 10% (8% alcohols, 2% FAFE) |
| Solid coproduct | 42% | 38% |
| Polyurethane | 41% | 43% |
| Nutrient recycle | 10% | 9% |
| Fixed capital investment ($MM) | $290 MM | $251 MM |
| Raw materials, utilities, and waste ($MM/yr) | $178 MM/yr | $174 MM/yr |
| Feedstock | 60.0% | 61.5% |
| Enzymesb | 1.6% | 2.0% |
| Natural gas | 5.9% | 7.7% |
| Electricity | 4.3% | 4.3% |
| Polyurethane inputs | 15.8% | 16.2% |
| Catalysts | 2.0% | n/a |
| H2 | 0.7% | n/a |
| Other chemicals | 9.7% | 8.2% |
aFirst number includes total mass of polyurethane, including diisocyanate co-reactant and other chemicals; number in parenthesis includes only mass from algae feedstock
bCellulase for MOTU pathway; cellulase and lipase for MA pathway
Modeled algal feedstock composition, based on a weighted average of multiple strains across all months of cultivation reflecting year-long outdoor test-bed cultivation campaigns conducted under the DISCOVR consortium [34]
| Elemental, ash free dry weight (AFDW) | Average composition (wt %) |
|---|---|
| C | 51.5 |
| H | 7.6 |
| O | 30.2 |
| N | 9.3 |
| S | 0.2 |
| P | 1.2 |
| Total | 100.0 |
| Component (dry wt%) | |
| Ash | 11.0 |
| Protein | 40.0 |
| Lipidsa | 9.2 |
| Non-fuel polar lipid impurities | 5.5 |
| Fermentable carbohydrates | 19.3 |
| Other carbohydrates | 3.6 |
| Cell mass | 11.4 |
| Total | 100.0 |
aReported as FAME, roughly equivalent to the portion of lipids convertible to fuels
Fig. 2Sensitivity analysis of MFSP vs. solid coproduct and PU prices for a MOTU and b MA pathways
Fig. 3Process flow diagram of a biorefinery based on the MA pathway. Green blocks represent unit operations that are shared between this pathway and the two main biorefining configurations investigated in this study, while blue boxes refer to sections specific to the new MAU plant. Dashed lines represent a fluctuating diversion of flow based on seasonal variability