Journal of Biotechnology 142 (2009) 6469

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Biotechnology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbiotec

Review

Microalgae and terrestrial biomass as source for fuelsA process view

Clemens Posten a, , Georg Schaub b
a
Universitt Karlsruhe (TH), Institut fr Bio- und Lebensmitteltechnik, Strasse am Forum 8, D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
b
Universitt Karlsruhe (TH), Engler-Bunte-Institut, Engler-Bunte-Ring 1, D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Due to increasing oil prices and climate change concerns, biofuels have become more important as poten-
Received 31 October 2008 tial alternative energy sources. It is an open question which kind of biofuels with which yield potentials,
Received in revised form 5 March 2009 characteristic properties and environmental consequences should give the largest contributions. Microal-
Accepted 19 March 2009
gae offer novel aquatic biomass systems with higher fuel yield potential and lower water demand than
terrestrial biomass. They allow the direct generation of desired end products like biooil, hydrogen, or
Keywords:
of materials to be processed afterwards (like starch, biomass). Research and development activities at
Biofuels
present include fundamentals of algae strain improvement, reactor design and process integration, with
Biofuel production
Biomass supply
auxiliary power requirements and specic reactor cost being addressed as most critical issues.
Biomass processing 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Microalgae

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2. Overall biomass-to-fuel system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3. Fuel criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4. Biomass growth, photosynthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.1. Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.2. Yield potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.3. Microalgae productionprocess alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5. Biomass conversion/upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.1. Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.2. Conversion efciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

1. Introduction ply of fuels for several reasons. The demand for fuels will increase as,
for example, the number of cars increases with the present growth
In an era of increasing oil prices and climate concerns, biofuels of economies and prosperity. Petroleum has become more expen-
have gained attention as alternative energy sources. Governments sive and will increasingly cause political and military conicts. Its
have become active in the target of securing the supply of raw mate- production will pass a maximum for conventional qualities in the
rials and limiting climate change, and many innovative proposals foreseeable future, while at the same time CO2 concentrations in
have been made, development work has started and potential can- the atmosphere will increase causing climate change effects. There-
didate fuels have been studied in the energy area. fore, continuous growth on the basis of present raw materials and
Todays supply of liquid fuels worldwide is almost completely processing technologies appears limited and leads to the interesting
dependent on petroleum. There is increasing pressure on the sup- question of the choice of new fuels, produced from new raw materi-
als, to complement or replace present petroleum-based fuels. Given
the above situation, there is presently a debate as to which fuels
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 7216082410; fax: +49 7216087553. from biomass with their yield potentials appear most attractive.
E-mail addresses: clemens.posten@mvm.uni-karlsruhe.de (C. Posten), The present paper discusses microalgae as a novel source for poten-
Georg.Schaub@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de (G. Schaub). tial future biofuels, in comparison with terrestrial biomass. Special

0168-1656/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbiotec.2009.03.015
 C. Posten, G. Schaub / Journal of Biotechnology 142 (2009) 6469 65

Nomenclature

Symbols/abbreviations
A area (m2 )
0
R H298 enthalpy of reaction at 298 K (kJ/mol)
Hi heat of combustion (MJ/kg)
m mass ow
n number
q energy ow (W)
x atomic ratio H/C
y atomic ratio O/C
a year
DE diesel engine
DF diesel fuel
Fig. 1. Overall system for producing high-quality biofuels.
DM dry matter
DME dimethyether
ETBE ethyl-tertiary-butyl-ether According to the wide variety of terrestrial and microalgae biomass
FAME fatty acid methylester species a large number of different processing schemes can con-
FC fuel cell tribute to biofuel production.
FT FischerTropsch
GA gasoline 3. Fuel criteria
ha hectare
HC hydrocarbon Chemical fuels are dened by the production of thermal energy
NPP net productivity photosynthesis during combustion, Eq. (1). The reaction enthalpy released can be
OE Otto engine approximated on the basis of the elementary composition, accord-
PCE photoconversion efciency ing to Eq. (2) (Boie, 1953; Schaub and Vetter, 2008). The aim of
RME rapeseed oil methylester conversion is the generation of a liquid or gaseous fuel with vapor-
SNG substitute natural gas ization and combustion characteristics as well as other properties
Synfuel synthetic diesel fuel appropriate for technical application.

CHx Oy + (1 + x/4 y/2)O2 CO2 + (x/2)H2 O R H < 0 (1)

emphasis lies on the desired fuel properties, production processes
and respective biomass supply. Since the required fuel amounts are
very high, both quality and yield aspects are signicant.
2. Overall biomass-to-fuel system
The overall system for producing upgraded, i.e. high-quality bio-
fuels includes growth of primary biomass and, as a second step,
processing of the raw biomass to the nal biofuel product (Fig. 1).
Processing may include bioprocesses (like fermentation) or chem-
ical conversion, often called rening. The resulting products are
aimed to t in todays fuel distribution infrastructures and uti-
lization technologies (internal combustion engines, fuel cells, etc.).
R H0298 = 422.5 117.2x + 177.5 y (kJ/mol) (2)
Among the biofuels listed in Table 1, only plant oil-derived esters
(fatty acid methyl ester, FAME, biodiesel) and ethanol presently play
a signicant role (1st generation). These are liquids in the boiling
range of gasoline (ethanol) and diesel fuel (FAME). As ether (ethyl-
tertiary-butyl-ether, ETBE) or added as such in small amounts they
t with todays engine technologies and distribution infrastruc-
tures. Integration of ethanol in oil reneries is successfully practiced
by etherication with butene-compounds from catalytic cracking to
ETBE, a high octane number compound for gasoline. Amounts are
limited by the yields of butene-compounds from catalytic crack-
ing, therefore direct blending of ethanol with gasoline must help
to reach higher biofuel contributions. Effects must be taken into

Table 1
Overview of biofuels and properties (abbreviations: see list).

FAMEa (biodiesel) Ethanola Synthetic diesela (synfuel) SNG Hydrogen Petroleum dieselb (reference)

Chemical compounds Fatty acid ester Alcohol (ether) Hydrocarbon Hydrocarbon H2 molecular Hydrocarbon
Cn Hxn O2 CH3 c C2 H5 OH CnH2n+2 CH4 H2 Cn Hxn
n = 1418, x = 2 (ETBE) n = 1020 n = 1020 + x = 0.52
Composition CHx Oy (CH2.0 O0.1 ) (CH3 O0.5 ) (CH2.3 O0.2 ) CH2.1 CH4 H2 (CH1.86 )
Boiling-Td ( C) 300360e 78.5 160380f 161.5 252.8 180360f
Densityg (g/cm3 ) mass 0.88 0.79 0.78 0.135h 0.017h 0.84
Densityg (MJ/L) energy 32.6 21.2 34.3 6.4h 1.9h 35.0
Application DE OE DE OE/FC DE/FC DE

Other signicant properties: vaporization, ignition, combustion and chemical stability.

a
First or second generation (see Table 3).
b
Schaub and Vetter (2008).
c
Also as raw vegetable oil (glycerine ester).
d
At 1 bar.
e
Rapeseed-methyl-ester RME.
f
Variable.
g
At 15 C.
h
At 200 bar.
66 C. Posten, G. Schaub / Journal of Biotechnology 142 (2009) 6469
Fig. 2. Potential pathways from microalgae to fuels.
account on storage and handling, as well as the characteristic
behaviour during vaporization and combustion. Plant oils can be
blended in limited amounts with diesel fuels as FAME, hydropro-
cessed to high-quality hydrocarbon diesel fuel, or used separately
as diesel fuel.
Ethanol, produced from lignocellulosis, and synthetic fuels pro-
duced from synthesis gas are called 2nd generation fuels, which are
more exible with respect to the raw materials used, can be pro-
duced from any kind of biomass (also residues and waste materials,
thus avoiding any direct food/feed/fuel competition). They also have
the potential to produce higher fuel yields per cultivated land area,
as they can use higher portions of the plant material. Synthetic fuels
in addition can be tailor-made to have well-dened fuel proper-
ties (Designer-Fuels), allowing for improved combustion engine
technologies (combined combustion systems, homogeneous com-
bustion).
Fuels, that are gaseous at ambient conditions and therefore must
be compressed or liqueed for storage, include substitute natural
gas (SNG) or hydrogen. They can both be produced via thermo-
chemical gasication (with subsequent gas treatment or synthesis)
or via biological processes (fermentation, biophotolysis). Hydrogen
represents the special case of a carbon-free fuel, which appears
attractive given the emission of only H2 O at the location of com-
bustion and the vision of a hydrogen economy.
4. Biomass growth, photosynthesis
4.1. Principles
Microalgae are unicellular plants and, like in terrestrical plants,
assimilate CO2 (rst lines in Table 2 and Fig. 2). The CO2 demand
is stoichiometrically about 1.7 kg CO2 /kg dry biomass. A high oil or
starch content can increase this value. As with terrestrial plants, the
Table 2
Idealized formulation of photobiological and chemical reactions for fuel generation and related enthalpy changes (examples).
Photosynthesis
Photobiological H2 O-splitting (microalgae)
Transesterication (rapeseed oil)
Fermentation
Gasication
Hydrocarbon synthesis
a
Based on empirical correlation for heat of combustion (Eq. (2)) with H2 O liquid.
partial pressure of CO2 in air is not high enough to exclude carbon
limitation. An optimum value for algae is in the range of 0.1 kPa to
avoid kinetic limitation. That means that air with more than 1% CO2
has to be provided. CO2 can be taken from biogas, fuel combustion
plants or chemical plants. Accordingly, algae plants should be built
close to CO2 sources, otherwise CO2 transport may be a problem.
Also like terrestrial plants, microalgae need nitrogen and phos-
phorus to build up biomass. Mass fraction of N is in the range
of 0.1 up to 0.14. High oil or starch content reduces this value.
Therefore, fertilization with nitrate or ammonium is necessary,
whereas cultivation in waste water is an alternative. The advan-
tage in closed photobioreactors is the possibility to apply only the
necessary stoichiometric amounts without losing fertilizer into the
environment. Furthermore, outgassing of N2 O into the atmosphere
can be avoided.
4.2. Yield potential
For terrestrial biomass, the net productivity of photosynthesis
(NPP) depends on a combination of geographic factors and the
kind of vegetation. In particular, the most signicant limiting fac-
tors are: kind of plant (C3 or C4), water availability, temperature,
soil quality, intensity of incoming solar radiation (Larcher, 2003;
Vetter, 2005). Plant growth is a non-continuous process following
the cyclic changes of day/night times and seasons. Energy efciency
of photosynthesis (as ratio of chemical energy content of biomass
versus incoming solar radiation) is limited by the albedo of the
leaves, quantum yields, and (photo-) chemical efciency (Larcher,
2003; Hder Donat, 1999). Values achieved in natural plants are low
(theoretical maximum around 6%), because other criteria besides
energy efciency are dominating in biological systems (e.g. repair
mechanisms of the cell). Resulting energy efciencies of photo-
synthesis achieved in temperate climates are generally below 1%.
Looking at the global distribution of vegetation indicates that water
availability is a very signicant limiting factor.
For microalgae biomass, higher energy efciencies for convert-
ing solar energy into chemical energy can be achieved. Based
on present understanding, it can be expected that microal-
gae can convert up to 5% of the sunlight energy to biomass
(PCE = photoconversion efciency, Schenk et al., 2008). This high
yield together with the different growing conditions in comparison
to terrestrial plants gave reason for some authors to call microalgae
the 3rd generation biomass.
Typical values of yields per area and chemical energy densi-
ties of photosynthesis are shown in Fig. 3 for various ecosystems
(Schlesinger, 1997) and for microalgae (Chisti, 2007). The achiev-
able energy densities must be seen in comparison with the average
intensity of the incoming solar radiation (153 W/m2 averaged
over time and surface area of the earth, with a signicant local
distribution (Schlesinger, 1997)). The carbon ows involved in pho-
tosynthesis represent a signicant contribution to the global carbon
cycle, as well do the oxygen ows generated contribute to sustain-
ing the benecial environment on earth.
R H0298 per mole of Ca (kJ/mol)
h
6CO2 + 6H2 O(C6 H12 O6 ) + 6O2 +479.4
h
(C6 H12 O6 ) + 6H2 O6CO2 + 12H2 +92.2
C57 H104 O6 + 3CH3 OH 3C19 H36 O2 + C3 H5 (OH)3 +0.1
(C6 H12 O6 ) 2C2 H5 OH + 2CO2 23.7
3CH4 + 3CO2 34.3
(C6 H12 O6 ) 6CO + 6H2 +89.4
CO+2H2 (CH2 ) + H2 O 185.7
 C. Posten, G. Schaub / Journal of Biotechnology 142 (2009) 6469
Fig. 3. Biomass yield and chemical energy density of photosynthesis, typical val-
ues for various ecosystems (based on Schlesinger (1997)), and own estimate for
microalgae.
4.3. Microalgae productionprocess alternatives
Cultivation of microalgae in open ponds is the usual approach
(Borowitzka, 1999). Here up to 20 g/(m2 d) dry biomass can be
harvested as annual mean. However, open ponds have some dis-
advantages. First of all, cultivation depends on water availability.
Evaporation leads to a signicant water loss (according to high
water availability in Fig. 4). Furthermore, the water medium has
to provide extremophilic conditions to some extent. Otherwise
the cultivated species will be outcompeted by other algae strains
or diminished by predator organisms. Sites with brackish water,
industrial wastewater ponds or some lakes with specic conditions
are preferred locations. Of particular interest are salt-tolerant algae
species growing in sea water, as here the availability is not critical.
Nevertheless, low cell concentrations make mixing and harvesting
less effective. In a study performed 10 years ago (Benemann and
Oswald, 1996) the economical viability of biofuels from microalgae
was considered as too expensive. In the recent past, this situation
has changed due to higher oil prices and better understanding of
microalgae cultivation.
Closed bioreactors have some specic advantages (Pulz, 2001).
Firstly, they can distribute the sun light over a larger surface area,
which can be up to 10 times higher than the footprint area of the
reactor. This is due to the fact that algae have their highest growth
efciencies at illumination intensities of not more than around
100 E/(m2 s), whereas a sunny tropical day can exhibit values up
to 2000 E/(m2 s). Secondly, evaporation can nearly completely be
avoided. The only water loss is due to the water content in the wet
algae product. The fraction of dry solid matter is here around 100 g/L
after mechanical concentration. This allows for the cultivation of
algae also in aride areas, where classical terrestrial agriculture is
not possible. Therefore, additional areas on the earth like deserts
Fig. 4. Effect of water availability on biomass yield (1) Larcher (2003) (based on
Lieth, 1975), +: Vetter (2008) (precipitation from May to September), microalgae:
own estimate.
67
Fig. 5. Example ow scheme: photo-biotechnological H2 production with microal-
gae and CO2 recycle (Lehr et al., 2008).
could be exploited for fuel or food production. It is often stated
that microalgae can avoid the competition between biofuels and
food. That is only partially true, since microalgae could be used
as food as well. Thirdly, in closed bioreactors cell densities of up
to 20 g/L can be achieved. This makes mixing and harvesting more
effective. Furthermore, contamination is less likely, so different and
more productive species can be produced.
Only a few hundred tons of microalgae biomass per year are
produced at present in closed bioreactors. Limiting factors are the
high reactor costs and the need for auxiliary energy requirements.
Energy for mixing is one of the problems. Even in simple systems
more than 3 W/m2 electrical energy are used for operating the cul-
tivation. So this comes close to the amount actually harvested at
the end. However, ongoing research in the reactor eld is promising
and will lead to cheaper and more energy-effective designs (Rosello
Sastre et al., 2007). Actually, several pilot plants have been set up in
the last 2 years which show productivities of more than 100 g/(L d)
which would mean 365 t/(ha y) (Pulz, 2007), although until now
such values have not been reached as a time-average value for larger
areas.
The most direct way of energetic usage of microalgae is the pro-
duction of methane in biogas plants. After cell concentration via
ltration or centrifugation, no further processing is necessary. Bio-
gas plants can also deal with the relatively high water content.
Compared to other kinds of biomass there are microalgae strains
which have no resistant compounds like lignin. Fermentation has
been shown to occur very rapidly. Another advantage considers
logistics, as microalgae cultivation and biogas production are basi-
cally decentral technologies. CO2 and minerals could be fed back to
the algae production stage quite efciently. However, process engi-
neering designs have yet to be developed. Fermentation is also an
option for residual biomass usage after extraction of biodiesel or
other valuable compounds.
In the US, production of biodiesel is considered as the most
viable option. Data given by Chisti (2007) highlight this enormous
potential, with tests in pilot plants ongoing to prove the feasibil-
ity. However, plants at industrial scale are presently in the design
stage. Nevertheless, some of the pilot plants show considerable high
productivities of more than 100 g/(L d) biomass at least for a limited
duration. However, the values given in by Chisti (2007) of more than
100,000 L biodiesel per ha are estimates based on highest growth
rates and highest oil contents. Here, thermodynamic limits cannot
be violated, so a PCE of more than 5% is not likely to be achievable,
what means that growth rates will be smaller during production
phase than under growth phase. For the most strains recently under
cultivation no realistic efciency data are available, considering real
day/night cycles and optimized limitation strategies. So this is also
a point for further research.
Production of hydrogen by direct photolysis is another inter-
esting option (Hankamer et al., 2007, Fig. 5). Here PCE values of
up to 2% have been reported for lab experiments (Kruse et al.,
68 C. Posten, G. Schaub / Journal of Biotechnology 142 (2009) 6469

Table 3
Raw materials and processes for the production of upgraded biofuels, examples (abbreviations: see list).

Product FAME (biodiesel) Ethanol Synthetic diesela , b SNG Hydrogen Petroleum diesel/
(synfuel) gasoline (reference)

Raw material (a) Oil seeds (rape, soja, Carbohydrate-biomass All kinds of (dry) (a) Fermentable (a) All kinds of biomass Petroleum
palm a.o.) (sugar, starch, biomass biomass
(b) Microalgae lignocellulosea ) (b) All kinds of (b) Fermentable
biomass biomasses
(c) Microalgae
Process Trans-esterication Fermentation (with Gasication and (a) Fermentation (a) Gasication Distillation
dis-integration, hydrolysis catalytic synthesis (b) Gasication and (b) Photofermentation Hydro-treating
for polymeric (FischerTropsch) catalytic synthesis (c) Biological reforming, etc.
carbohydrates) H2 O-splitting
a
2nd generation.
b
Also hydrocarbons in different carbon number range (gasoline or other).

2005). Advantages on the process side are easy separation of the
gaseous product from biomass, possibility to recycle CO2 and fer-
tilizers inside the plant and reducing the necessity of mixing and
gassing.
5. Biomass conversion/upgrading
5.1. Principles
The selection of conversion processes depends on the kind of
biomass feedstock used and on the desired product (Tables 2 and 3).
Formulation of selected biotechnological or chemical model reac-
tions and heat effects are listed in Table 2. Main criteria are water
content and chemical composition of the biomass (Figs. 1 and 6).
If plant-derived oils are used as raw materials, only minor chem-
ical modications are required to achieve a fuel in the boiling range
of diesel fuel. Today most commonly methyl esters are produced
from the raw oil (fatty acid methyl ester, FAME) (IEA, 2004). Total
yields are limited, as only part of the biomass (i.e. the oil seeds of
terrestrial biomass) is used. Transesterication is carried out as a
thermoneutral reaction in the liquid phase. Energy requirements
and thus loss in efciency are determined by separation and condi-
tioning steps of the products (cleaning and drying of FAME, purity
of the byproduct glycerine).
Fermentation of carbohydrates (sugar, starch, cellulose after
hydrolysis) leads to ethanol as product (IEA, 2004). In the case of
sugar and starch as raw material, only part of the biomass can be
used, total yields per agricultural area therefore are limited, as com-
pared to utilization of the whole plant (possible for gasication and
synthesis). As an alternative, anaerobic fermentation can also lead
to CH4 as nal product (Deublein and Steinhauser, 2008). In this
case, energy-intensive separation of liquids can be avoided and
due to the low heat effects of the reaction high energy efciencies
can be achieved. Applied are presently bio-waste and energy plant
materials with high moisture content (liquid manure, grass, maize
silage, etc.).
Chemical synthesis starting from synthesis gas (CO/H2 ) may lead
to different kinds of synthetic fuels (e.g. synthetic hydrocarbons,
methanol, dimethylether). Synthesis gas is produced via gasica-
tion, reforming or partial oxidation reactions with oxygen/steam
(Schaub and Reimert, 2003). Minor constituents that damage the
catalyst must be removed and syngas composition (H2 /CO-ratio)
must be adjusted to the subsequent synthesis reaction. In the
case of hydrocarbon synthesis (FischerTropsch) primary prod-
ucts most commonly are upgraded by hydroprocessing (cracking
or isomerisation) to produce a high-quality product. If diesel fuel
with carbon numbers in the range 1020 is the desired product,
present strategies achieve maximum yields by a two-step approach.
During synthesis, long-chain waxy hydrocarbon molecules (C21+ )
are produced as intermediates that, during product upgrading,
are converted to the desired molecules of diesel fuel (Schaub,
2006). FischerTropsch synthesis reactions are highly exother-
mic, gasication (at a higher temperature level) is endothermic.
Together with heat losses and energy requirements of the over-
all process (i.e. due to elevated process pressure) this leads to a
limited energy efciency of the overall conversion (expected val-
ues 3045%). Synthesis reactions occur with solid catalysts, e.g.
in 3-phase-reactors with synthesis products as liquid phase. As
an alternative to FischerTropsch synthesis, a synthesis route via
methanol to gasoline (MTG) is available. Also methane can be pro-
duced by chemical synthesis as a substitute to natural gas (SNG).

Fig. 7. Overall fuel yields per area cultivated land or photobioreactor, diesel fuel
equivalent: 35.28 MJ/L (with 42 MJ/kg and 0.84 kg/L petroleum-based diesel fuel),
Fig. 6. Biomass for fuel applicationsranges of moisture content. source: FNR (2006) and authors own estimates, see Table 4.
 C. Posten, G. Schaub / Journal of Biotechnology 142 (2009) 6469
Table 4
Additional information and assumptions to Fig. 7 (source: FNR, 2006, own
estimates).
Rapeseed to RME Potential 2005, 2015
Sugar-beet/starch to ethanol Potential 2005, 2015 (A: yield increasing)
Lignocellulose to ethanol Based on straw (2.84.5 t/ha a DM)
Poplar to H2 1215 t/ha a, 90 kg H2 /t DM (thermal
gasication)
Maize/miscanthus to synfuel 1520 t/ha a 20 GJ/t (gasication and
synthesis) 4045% efciency
Maize to CH4 (biogas) n.a.
Microalgae to CH4 (biogas) 100 t/ha a DM
The exothermicity of the reaction is higher, however a large por-
tion of CH4 can be generated already during gasication. The
advantage of biomass conversion processes based on synthesis
gas is the exibility with respect to the kind of biomass feed-
stock, i.e. any kinds of (relatively dry) biomass can be used (see
Fig. 4).
5.2. Conversion efciency
First indication for conversion efciency (i.e. ratio heat of com-
bustion of product versus raw material) is given by the enthalpy
of reaction (Table 2). Additional energy inputs (for mixing, ow,
separation, etc.) lower overall (net) efciencies. Biotechnological
conversion processes generally have higher efciencies than chemi-
cal conversion processes. Combination of biomass growth yield and
conversion efciency leads to overall yields of upgraded fuels per
unit ground area (Fig. 7).
6. Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn regarding biomass raw
material availability and chemical/biotechnological upgrading pro-
cesses:
(1) Microalgae offer novel aquatic biomass systems with high bio-
fuel yield potential and low water demand (as compared to
terrestrial biomass). They allow direct generation of desired
fuel end products (like biooil or hydrogen) and thus low pro-
cessing requirements. Research and development aim at high
efciency reactor design and integrated processes, address-
ing, for example, reaction engineering fundamentals (kinetics,
hydrodynamics, etc.) or product separation. Auxiliary power
requirements and specic production cost are the most critical
issues with fuels as products.
(2) Terrestrial biomass systems are continuously being optimized
with respect to overall yield and quality specication.
69
(3) Biomass-to-fuel conversion/upgrading processes are improved
with respect to individual kinds of biomass, especially to those
that avoid direct competition of food/feed/fuel.
(4) Biofuels from terrestrial and microalgae biomass can provide a
(limited) contribution to energy security. Together with energy
efciency and saving measures, as well as changes in consumer
behaviour, they will be important to meet the energy demands
of the future.
References
Benemann, J., Oswald, W., 1996. Systems and Economic Analysis of Microalgae Ponds
for Conversion of CO2 to Biomass. Final Report to the US Department of Energy,
Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center.
Boie, W., 1953. Fuel technology calculations. Energietechnik 3, 309316.
Borowitzka, M.A., 1999. Commercial production of microalgae: ponds, tanks, tubes
and fermenters. J. Biotechnol. 70, 313321.
Chisti, Y., 2007. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol. Adv. 25, 294306.
Deublein, D., Steinhauser, A. (Eds.), 2008. Biogas from Waste and Renewable
Resources: An Introduction. Wiley VCH Verlag, Weinheim, Germany.
FNR (Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe), 2006. Biokraftstoffe - eine vergle-
ichende Analyse. Glzow, Germany.
Hder Donat, P. (Ed.), 1999. Photosynthesis. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart, Ger-
many.
Hankamer, B., Lehr, F., Rupprecht, J., Mussgnug, J.H., Posten, C., Kruse, O., 2007. Pho-
tosynthetic biomass and H2 production by green algae: from bioengineering to
bioreactor scale-up. Physiol. Plant 131, 1021.
IEA (International Energy Agency), 2004. Biofuels for TransportAn International
Perspective. OECD, Paris, France.
Kruse, O., Rupprecht, J., Mussgnug, J.-R., et al., 2005. Photosynthesis: a blueprint
for solar energy capture and biohydrogen production technologies. Photochem.
Photobiol. Sci. 4, 957970.
Larcher, W., 2003. Physiological Plant Ecology. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Lehr, F., Renz, A., Posten, C., Schaub, G., 2008. Photo-biotechnological H2 production
with microalgae. In: Proceedings Deutsche Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft fr
Erdl, Erdgas und Kohle, DGMK 2008-2, Hamburg, Germany, pp. 247254.
Lieth, F., 1975. Modeling the primary productivity of the world. In: Lieth, H., Whit-
taker, R. (Eds.), Primary Productivity of the Biosphere. Springer Verlag, Berlin,
Germany, pp. 237254.
Pulz, O., 2001. Photobioreactors: production systems for phototrophic microorgan-
isms. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 57, 287293.
Pulz, O., 2007, Performance Summary Report: Evaluation of GreenFuels 3D Matrix
Algae Growth Engineering Scale Unit.
Rosello Sastre, R., Csgr, Z., Perner-Nochta, I., Fleck-Schneider, P., Posten, C., 2007.
Scale-down of microalgae cultivations in tubular photo-bioreactorsa concep-
tual approach. J. Biotechnol. 132, 127133.
Schaub, G., 2006. Synthetic fuels and biofuels for the transportation
sectorprinciples and perspectives. Oil Gas Eur. Mag. 1, 3438, in: Erdl,
Erdgas, Kohle 122.
Schaub, G., Reimert, R., 2003. Ullmanns Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, vol.
15., sixth ed. Wiley VCH, Weinheim, pp. 357-380.
Schaub, G., Vetter, A., 2008. Biofuels for automobilesan overview. Chem. Eng. Tech-
nol. 31, 721729.
Schenk, P.M., Thoams-hall, S.R., Stephens, E., Marx, U.C., Mussgnug, J.H., Posten,
C., Kruse, O., Hankamer, B., 2008. Second generation biofuels: high-efciency
microalgae for biodiesel production. Bioenergy Res. 1, 2043.
Schlesinger, W.H., 1997. Biogeochemistry, an Analysis of Global Change, second ed.
Academic Press, San Diego, USA.
Vetter, A., 2005. 3rd Int. Congr. Biofuels Kraftstoffe der Zukunft 2005, Berlin, Ger-
many.
Vetter, A., 2008. Status Report Energy Crop Production, 3rd Int. BtL-Congress, Berlin,
Germany.