Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 5056

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from microalgae in ponds

Peter K. Campbell *, Tom Beer, David Batten
Energy Transformed Flagship, Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research, Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, CSIRO, PB1, Aspendale VIC 3125, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
This paper analyses the potential environmental impacts and economic viability of producing biodiesel from microalgae grown in ponds. A comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study of a notional production system designed for Australian conditions was conducted to compare biodiesel production from algae (with three different scenarios for carbon dioxide supplementation and two different production rates) with canola and ULS (ultra-low sulfur) diesel. Comparisons of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions (g CO2-e/t km) and costs (/t km) are given. Algae GHG emissions (27.6 to 18.2) compare very favourably with canola (35.9) and ULS diesel (81.2). Costs are not so favourable, with algae ranging from 2.2 to 4.8, compared with canola (4.2) and ULS diesel (3.8). This highlights the need for a high production rate to make algal biodiesel economically attractive. Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 8 February 2010 Received in revised form 3 June 2010 Accepted 7 June 2010 Available online 1 July 2010 Keywords: Life cycle assessment Algae Greenhouse gas Biofuels Biodiesel

1. Introduction First generation biofuels (based on sugar and starch crops or vegetable oil as feedstock) have been around for well over a century. However, due to the priority use of food crops for human and animal nutrition, competition of biofuel with food production, and the potential for increasing food prices and subsequent effect on the poor, this is seen by many as undesirable although in some areas production could be an additional source of income for poor farmers (Batten and OConnell, 2007; von Braun et al., 2008). There has also been debate as to whether biofuels based on crops can provide more energy than their production consumes (Pimentel, 2003; Pimentel and Patzek, 2005), although more recent reports (e.g. NRDC 2006; Farrell et al., 2006) dispute that there is an energy decit. The latest area of concern is over greenhouse gas (GHG) balances; there is now a suggestion that the results of indirect land use change have not been taken into account (Searchinger et al., 2008), or that the emissions of nitrous oxide (a potent GHG) have been underestimated in the past (Crutzen et al., 2008; Edwards et al., 2008; Erisman et al., 2010) and thus there may be no GHG benets from using rst-generation biofuels rather than fossil fuels. Australian experimental work (Grant and Beer, 2008) does not support the claims of underestimation of nitrous oxide emissions. It has also been shown that some biofuel practices, e.g. the production of biodiesel from palm oil grown on a dried peat marsh,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9239 4418; fax: +61 3 9239 4444. E-mail addresses: purplepete@gmail.com, peter.k.campbell@csiro.au (P.K. Campbell).

can result in increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases (Beer et al., 2007). Microalgae species as feedstocks for biofuels have gained considerable interest (Stephens et al., 2010); they can be produced in areas unsuitable for crops, and can potentially grow at a much faster rate (Chisti, 2007). In addition, some species are extremely high in lipid content (Sheehan et al., 1988), making them suitable for biodiesel production. This is not a new realisation; the oil crisis of the 1970s resulted in algal research in the late 1970s and early 1980s, much of which has been reviewed in Sheehan et al. (1988). However, once the price of crude oil fell, the impetus and funding for alternative biofuel research (including algae biodiesel) dried up. Although industrial-scale facilities for biodiesel production from microalgae have not been built, there has been substantial research performed on the feasibility, design and requirements for such a production system. A near-complete design for a large (400 ha) production system to produce biodiesel from algae is in Regan and Gartside (1983), as well as recommendations on exactly where in Australia such facilities could be situated, whilst Benemann and Oswald (1996) contains additional information on algal production, including economic considerations and identies several additional pieces of equipment necessary for production not outlined in Regan and Gartside (1983). We have combined these systems to produce a notional production system with 400 ha of ponds over 500 ha of coastal Australian land, with the economic data updated using the latest costs for equipment and services (as noted in Table 1, the extra 100 ha are required for roads, processing facilities, etc.). The inputs and outputs of this production system were then computed to determine its environmental impacts (primarily GHG emissions) and economic viability.

0960-8524/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.048

P.K. Campbell et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 5056 Table 1 Input/Output data for 1 ha of Algal Pond production (30 g m2 d1, adjacent ammonia plant) over one year. Flow Product Dried Algae, at ponds Resources Occupation, non-arable, arid land Occupation, non-arable, arid land Occupation, non-arable, arid land Water, salt, ocean Materials and energy Urea, at regional store Fertilizer, NPKS 32%/10%/0%/0%, at regional store Iron sulphate Carbon dioxide Flocculant Tractor, fuel usage Electricity required, high voltage Electricity required, high voltage Electricity produced, high voltage Emissions to air Carbon dioxide, fossil Nitrogen volatilisation Emissions to water Water, to ocean Salts, unspecied, to ocean Unit t ha a ha a ha a t kg kg kg t kg MJ k Wh k Wh k Wh t kg Value 109.6 1 0.21 0.040 77 140 896 615 1.0 185 266 450 21 890 1 844 106 600 2.50 2.44 Algal Growth Ponds Processing, Roads, Anaerobic Digester Lagoon, etc. Pipelines Pumped into ponds Extra nitrogen Nitrogen and Phosphorus Excess CO2 delivered by truck or via pipes from adjacent power station or ammonia plant Hydrophobic polymer Diesel tractor used in harvesting algae Includes direct costs for mixing, water pumping, CO2 pumping during day, etc. For pumping methane back to ammonia plant at night Energy gained from methane combustion for power Additional emissions from other vehicles and amortized inputs of plant capital From fertilizer inputs. Using ABARE gures for liquid slurry management; likely to be much lower Water released back to sea with slightly higher salt levels due to evaporation Excess salt as per above Min Max Comment

51

0.19 0.036 70 000 717 492 0.8 170 240 375 19 120 1 660 96 000 2.0 0.25

0.23 0.044 85 000 1 075 738 1.2 200 295 525 28 540 2 030 140 000 3.0 3.30

t t

51 500 84.7

45 000 76.0

55 000 94.0

NB: Values are derived from Benemann and Oswald (1996), adjusted for Australian conditions using Regan and Gartside (1983). For more information see Campbell et al. (2009).

We believe that the notional production system described is physically plausible and makes good use of available resources (especially land and water), and as such is suitable to base an actual algal biodiesel production plant upon. Such a plant should produce biofuels that introduce substantially less GHG emissions into the atmosphere than comparative fossil fuels, and be economically viable. In countries other than Australia differing requirements and limitations could alter the viability of these systems; these are outlined in Section 3.3, along with environmental factors that are not specically addressed in this paper. ULS diesel is used as a baseline as this was the standard of diesel in use by vehicles at the time data was originally collected for the study. Canola is the only other potential biodiesel feedstock grown in Australia in sufcient quantity such that a valid comparison can be made with it; Australia does not use palm oil, soybean, Pongamia or Jatropha crops for biodiesel manufacture. 2. Methods As noted above, the production system used is a combination of systems given in Benemann and Oswald (1996) and Regan and Gartside (1983). Examination of subsequent literature (Benneman, 2003; Huntley and Redalje, 2007; Sazdanoff, 2006; Sheehan et al., 1988; van Harmelen and Oonk, 2006) has shown that the basic design in Benemann and Oswald (1996) is still current, although some processing costs are likely to be lower due to modern technology. Thus we have adopted the design principles and costs of Benemann and Oswald (1996) with a few modications. A fuller explanation can be found in Campbell et al., (2009), included as supporting documentation. The major design elements are:  Flattened toroidal (raceway design) ponds 0.71 m deep with water to the depth of approximately 0.3 m. It is assumed that the ground is sufciently nonporous that plas-

tic or concrete liners are not required; just compaction of the base and a thin layer of clay to seal the walls (except for exposed areas and near the paddle wheel where to avoid erosion Polyfelt or a similar material is used). If liners are required this can potentially double the initial capital cost, making the system uneconomical given the current price of ULS diesel. These ponds are situated adjacent to the coast and, in tow of the three scenarios, near an industrial producer of carbon dioxide. One paddle wheel per raceway to ensure a ow rate of 0.10 0.25 m s1 to ensure suitable mixing of nutrients and carbon dioxide. This paddle wheel is next to a 1.5 m deep sump in the ponds into which carbon dioxide is pumped; this depth ensures take-up of an estimated 95% of the gas. Nutrients, when required, are also fed into the pond at this point. Sea water is pumped from the nearby coast to offset losses due to transpiration and evaporation; after treatment and excess salt removal the wastewater is allowed back into the ocean via gravity. It is assumed that a chemical (hydrophobic polymer) occulant is used to concentrate the algae, before feeding it into a dissolved air otation (DAF) system to further concentrate the algae, after which it is heated and fed into a centrifuge to concentrate the algae further and extract the lipids. There is much research being undertaken currently to nd cheaper and more efcient alternatives to this system. As with vegetable oils (such as canola), lipids produced from the algae are transesteried via the addition of methanol and a catalyst. The lipid prole of algae varies between species and within species (Damiani et al., 2010). It is assumed that the species of alga is chosen such that the lipid prole is sufciently close to that extracted from canola so that the same equipment and inputs can be used to create the biodiesel, and the same emissions and energy results from combustion, otherwise economic costs and GHG emissions are likely to be

52

P.K. Campbell et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 5056

increased. Alternatively if the lipid prole was sufciently different the oil could be hydrogenated; due to lack of process data this pathway is not considered further in this paper.  Algal mass remaining after lipid extraction is fed into an anaerobic digester unit which turns a substantial amount into methane, which is then combusted to produce electricity. The remaining biomass could be used as a fertilizer or potentially stock-feed, but it is assumed herein that it ends up as waste. Although a cradle to grave analysis of the production system is provided for economic analysis, the system boundaries of the LCA have been set to exclude the production facilities and its construction. Thus the energy and environmental impacts resulting from these items are not included. This is not only because the exact details of several subsystems have yet to be determined, but also because in the literature the embodied costs and environmental impacts of the infrastructure required to produce fossil fuels (including initial exploration, pipelines for transport, etc.) is rarely, if ever, mentioned. So, in order to compare the impacts of algal biodiesel production with those of canola-based biodiesel and fossil-based ULS diesel, the embodied costs of infrastructure have been ignored. The production system is assumed to occupy 500 ha, of which 400 ha are the ponds; the rest of the area being occupied by roads, buildings, etc. Algal yields, or biomass production rates, can vary highly between and even within species, as well as being dependent upon the levels of inputs. We have compiled results for two different yields. A production rate of 15 g m-2 d1 (54.8 t ha1 a1) of dryweight algae has been reached over the course of a year in an open pond (Huntley and Redalje, 2007), so it seems likely that this production rate could be achieved in a real-world scenario. Much higher yields can be seen in laboratory conditions, which has led some researchers to suggest that it should be possible to get a production rate twice as high, i.e. 30 g m-2 d-1 (109.6 t ha1 a1; a1 indicates per annum) algal production; this is also the value suggested in Benemann and Oswald (1996). In addition to the two different production rates, three different scenarios for carbon dioxide supplementation have been tested, that deliver the optimal amount for the given growth rate: 1. Delivery in pure form from an adjacent ammonia plant via pipe. 2. Delivery in ue gas (at 15% concentration) from an adjacent fossil-fuel power station via pipe. 3. Delivery by truck (200 km round-trip assumed, commercially produced) in liqueed (compressed) form with local storage. Assuming a production rate of 30 g m-2 d1, the input and output data for one hectare of algal farm production using this design are shown in Table 1 for the scenario where there is an adjacent ammonia plant. The inputs are slightly different for the other two scenarios; these can be found in (Campbell et al., 2009). In order to compare different diesel types, the functional unit of the LCA is the combustion of enough fuel in an articulated truck (AT; the most common form of freight transport in Australia) diesel engine to transport one tonne of freight one kilometre, i.e. a tonnekilometre (t km or tkm). This has previously been calculated to require the equivalent of 0.89 MJ of diesel fuel, which is 23.057 ml of ULS diesel (Campbell et al., 2009). Canola biodiesel has been shown to have a lower energy density, and thus requires 27.085 ml (US EPA, 2002). Results were obtained using the SimaPro 7 software tool. This contains information on life cycle GHG emissions (direct and indi-

rect, but rarely including embodied energy due to plant) determined for previous projects (including ULS diesel and canola biodiesel). Data has been obtained from the relevant Australian authorities (e.g. the Energy Supply Association of Australia for electricity), and other relevant sources including AusLCI (the Australian Life Cycle Inventory). Where local data is not available the closest item or system in the ecoInvent database that comes with SimaPro is used. Considerable more information on how the inputs and outputs were arrived at and the assumptions made can be found in Campbell et al. (2009).

2.1. Life cycle assessment There is a view that if it were possible to capture carbon dioxide ue gases from a power station and use the gases to grow algae for biofuels production then this process would qualify as a GHG capture mechanism. This view is only partially correct, since the permissible carbon credits do not arise from the ue gas that is captured because the algae-derived fuel will eventually be burnt and the captured carbon returned to the atmosphere. The carbon credits arise as a result of the displacement of the fossil fuel that would have been used if the biofuel had not become available. In addition, if electricity is produced from the algal by-products such as spent algal biomass, then additional carbon credits may become available through the displacement of any coal, gas, etc. that would have been used for electrical production. Because of this it is necessary to undertake detailed life-cycle calculations of the processing energy needed to make the biofuel, in order to quantify the GHG emissions at each stage of the process. This enables us to determine whether the process does indeed emit less CO2 than the use of fossil fuels and if this is the case to quantify the associated greenhouse gas savings. Gnansounou et al. (2009) recommend methods for estimating the energy and GHG balances of biofuels that have been followed in this study. Jorquera et al. (2010) used life cycle analysis to examine the energy return of algal grown using photo-bioreactors (PBRs) and algae grown using ponds. They found that the net energy return of PBRs was less than unity and thus uneconomical whereas that of ponds was greater than unity. This agrees with the life cycle energy analysis of Campbell et al. (2009). Lardon et al. (2009) examined the life-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from the use of algae as a biofuel in Europe. Clarens et al. (2010) undertook a similar analysis for the United States and compared algae to ethanol by using the heating value of the respective fuels. This fails to account for the subsequent transesterication of the algal oil to produce a speciality fuel (biodiesel) rather than combustible biomass.

3. Results and discussion 3.1. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions The primary greenhouse gas emissions considered in this paper are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Global Warming Potential (GWP) factors used are from the Kyoto Protocol with a 100 year time horizon (1 for carbon dioxide, 21 for methane and 310 for nitrous oxide), as these are the values adopted by most governments. The IPCC has since updated these values. GWP factors measure how much a given mass of greenhouse gas contributes to global warming, in comparison to carbon dioxide this allows us to sum the CO2-e (carbon dioxide equivalent) units of all the emissions together to allow direct comparisons between different systems. As previously mentioned direct and indirect

P.K. Campbell et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 5056 Table 2 Greenhouse Emissions (g CO2-e) for 1 t km articulated truck fuel use, with biodiesel facilities having a production of 30 g m2 d1. Impact category Greenhouse Gas (total fossil) GHG (total fossil upstream) GHG (total fossil tailpipe) GHG (total upstream) GHG (total tailpipe) GHG-CO2 (fossil upstream) GHG-CO2 (fossil tailpipe) GHG-CH4 (total) GHG-N2O (total) GHG-CO2 (total upstream) GHG-CO2 (total tailpipe) GHG-other (total) Biodiesel, algal, 100% CO2 (ammonia plant) 27.560 28.030 0.470 27.949 62.028 28.563 0.001 0.030 0.971 28.547 61.559 0.001 Biodiesel, algal, 15% CO2 (ue gas) power station 23.019 23.489 0.470 23.408 62.028 23.797 0.001 0.181 0.957 23.987 61.559 0.001 Biodiesel, algal, 100% CO2 (truck delivered) 8.298 7.828 0.470 7.852 62.028 6.861 0.001 0.250 1.117 6.657 61.559 0.068 Biodiesel, canola 35.856 35.386 0.470 35.465 62.028 33.437 0.001 0.984 1.431 33.659 61.559 0.004 ULS diesel 81.239 19.213 62.026 19.241 62.026 18.040 61.557 1.156 0.486 18.047 61.557 0.000

53

greenhouse gas emissions resulting from operation are included, but embodied emissions of plant equipment are not. Table 2 gives the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy usage arising from 1 t km fuel use, assuming the production system is producing algae at the rate of 30 g m-2 d1. The table lists total amounts for the various GHG emissions, showing the splits between fossil vs. non-fossil emissions and upstream vs. tailpipe emissions. Fossil emissions are those resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels, which add to the amount of GHG in the atmosphere. Non-fossil emissions are carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the burning of biomass (algae, canola oil, trees) this is just recycling carbon dioxide that had been xed by the biomass, and does not add extra GHG to the atmosphere. Tailpipe emissions are those released from the truck due to combustion of the fuel, whereas upstream emissions are those released during the production of the fuel (including harvesting, transporting the fuel to and from reneries and to bowsers in refuelling stations, etc.). Table 3 gives the same data but assumes a production rate of 15 g m-2 d1. There are some economies of scale with higher algal production rates, e.g. the amount of electricity required to operate the raceway paddle wheel to ensure proper mixing of carbon dioxide and nutrients is nearly independent of the algal growth rate. In several cases negative values are listed. This is because in the design facility, the algal cake left after lipid extraction is turned into electricity, via anaerobic digestion into methane. Such electricity offsets GHG production that would otherwise come from combusting coal and natural gas (a large source of greenhouse gases from Australian power stations). Even when carbon dioxide has to be delivered by truck, the production of algal biodiesel in the production system described reduces GHG emissions to the atmosphere, in comparison to ULS

fossil diesel and also to canola-based biodiesel. Thus, from a GHG mitigation perspective, the production of biodiesel (and electricity) from algae in this fashion is benecial, with a reduction in greenhouse gas output of between 63.1 and 108.8 g t1 km1. 3.2. Economic considerations Commercial-scale production of algal biodiesel will not occur unless the economic considerations are also favourable. Table 4 presents the costs of producing fuel for the different scenarios, for 1 t km usage, at an algal production rate of 30 g m-2 d-1. Table 5 gives the same data for 15 g m-2 d-1 of algal production. The costs for ULS diesel assume a bowser price of A$1.65/litre, which is equivalent to a production cost of approximately A$1.40/litre. This is for indicative purposes only; the prices for biodiesel do not include federal or state excises (more on this below), nor the prot margins at the point of sale, although it does include the cost of delivery to the bowser. The producer may also wish to add a further prot margin, in addition to the already included costs for amortizing the plant capital at 15% per year. The economic ramications of producing biodiesel from algae are even more uncertain than the GHG emissions. A high production rate of algae is required in order to make algal diesel protable. At the lower rate of production, the nal product would be more expensive than fossil diesel fuel potentially even more expensive than biodiesel made from canola. Another thing to consider is the looming change in excise. In Australia, biofuels are exempt from federal excise, but current legislation has excise being applied in stages from July 2011 (Parliament of Australia, 2006), until the full excise rate is levied in mid-2015, although there are a range of policy reviews underway that may change this. With this additional excise, even at the higher rate of production the scenario

Table 3 Greenhouse Emissions (g CO2-e) for 1 t km articulated truck fuel use, with biodiesel facilities having a production of 15 g m2 d1. Impact category Greenhouse Gas (total fossil) GHG (total fossil upstream) GHG (total fossil tailpipe) GHG (total upstream) GHG (total tailpipe) GHG-CO2 (fossil upstream) GHG-CO2 (fossil tailpipe) GHG-CH4 (total) GHG-N2O (total) GHG-CO2 (total upstream) GHG-CO2 (total tailpipe) GHG-other (total) Biodiesel, algal, 100% CO2 (ammonia plant) 15.648 16.118 0.470 16.037 62.028 16.742 0.001 0.102 0.990 16.689 61.559 0.001 Biodiesel, algal, 15% CO2 (ue gas) - power station 10.524 10.994 0.470 10.913 62.028 11.477 0.001 0.033 0.984 11.562 61.559 0.001 Biodiesel, algal, 100% CO2 (truck delivered) 18.164 17.695 0.470 17.719 62.028 16.594 0.001 0.364 1.138 16.470 61.559 0.068 Biodiesel, canola 35.856 35.386 0.470 35.465 62.028 33.437 0.001 0.984 1.431 33.659 61.559 0.004 ULS diesel 81.239 19.213 62.026 19.241 62.026 18.040 61.557 1.156 0.486 18.047 61.557 0.000

54

P.K. Campbell et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 5056

Table 4 Economic costs (2008A) for 1 t km articulated truck fuel use, with biodiesel facilities having a production of 30 g m2 d1. Impact category Cost, feedstock Cost, transformation & distribution Cost, capital Cost, excise Total cost Biodiesel, algal, 100% CO2 (ammonia plant) 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.0 2.8 Biodiesel, algal, 15% CO2 (ue gas) power station 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.0 2.2 Biodiesel, algal, 100% CO2 (truck delivered) 1.3 0.7 1.1 0.0 3.0 Biodiesel, canola 3.5 0.7 0.1 0.0 4.2 ULS diesel 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.9 3.8

Table 5 Economic costs (2008A) for 1 t km articulated truck fuel use, with biodiesel facilities having a production of 15 g m2 d1. Impact category Cost, feedstock Cost, transformation & distribution Cost, capital Cost, excise Total cost Biodiesel, algal, 100% CO2 (ammonia plant) 1.9 0.7 1.8 0.0 4.3 Biodiesel, algal, 15% CO2 (ue gas) coal power plant 1.3 0.7 1.9 0.0 3.9 Biodiesel, algal, 100% CO2 (truck delivered) 2.0 0.7 2.1 0.0 4.8 Biodiesel, canola 3.5 0.7 0.1 0.0 4.2 ULS diesel 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.9 3.8

with carbon dioxide delivered by truck becomes uneconomical. A neighbouring carbon dioxide source and high algal production rate is required for protability. This situation assumes a constant cost of ULS diesel, but with the increasing price of crude oil due to it being a diminishing resource, economies of scale and technological advances in algal biodiesel production should improve the relative protability of the latter. The above price comparison is also lacking in that there are a number of hidden costs for fossil-fuels not reected in the price of the ULS diesel. For example, the initially high capital cost has been largely written off over time, and most governments provide subsidies and tax incentives for oil exploration, which are thus borne by taxpayers indirectly, rather than directly in the price of the fuel (ELI, 2009). The cost of treating health effects of fossil fuel combustion are also borne by governments and individuals, and not reected in the fuel price (Comar and Nelson, 1975). 3.3. Discussion The cost for establishing the production system was amortized at a rate of 15% per annum, as suggested in Benemann and Oswald (1996), which is higher than the 10% more commonly used in industry. This higher rate was used in order to attract investment, as mass algal production for biodiesel is still an unproven technology. If investors were willing to accept a rate of 10% instead, this would result in a signicant improvement in the economics of the plant. At an algal production rate of 30 g m-2 d-1 the amortised capital accounts for 47-64% of the annual operating costs; at 15 g m-2 d-1 it is 4357%. For the lesser production case, this change would see the production cost of algal biodiesel fall by 15-19%; ue-gas supplemented algal biodiesel would drop from 3.9 to 3.4 t1 km1, and truck-delivered CO2 supplemented algal biodiesel would drop from 4.8 to 3.9 t1 km1. This leaves the latter still more expensive than ULS diesel, and the other scenarios borderline protable but still at risk with the introduction of excise tax. Another requirement for growing algae in this fashion economically is a concentrated source of carbon dioxide. Although these sources are readily available in Australia because of the dominance

of power generation from fossil fuels, this could change in the foreseeable future. Australias ratication of the Kyoto Protocol, and stated long-term commitment to reduce the nations carbon dioxide outputs by as much as 25% below 2000 levels by 2020 (DCC, 2009), suggest that there could be a substantial move towards methods of generating electricity without carbon dioxide emissions. Thus the number of locations in which algal biodiesel could be produced economically would be reduced. Also, there is expected to be a move towards electrication in transport, especially for passenger vehicles. Thus algal biodiesel is likely to be useful primarily as a transition fuel over the next few decades within Australia. These ndings may not be relevant to other countries, however. The following is a list of potential differences:  Australia is a relatively dry continent, with most of the fresh water already spoken for, hence the reliance on salt water in this study. In other countries fresh water may be more freely available, and evaporation rates much lower. Alternatively, in even drier areas water and the evaporation rates could be even more of an issue, and the disposal of salt left behind due to evaporation could be a real concern when considering water quality issues.  Australia has locations where large areas can be devoted to algae ponds, without having large impacts on biodiversity. Some countries may not have this luxury; land could simply be unavailable, be very expensive, or if replaced by algal ponds lead to a large loss in biodiversity.  Australia receives much higher levels of sunlight per unit area than many countries. Countries much farther from the equator will be restricted in their algal growth rate due to lower solar inputs.  Temperatures in Australia are, in general, conducive to growing algae in ponds.  Electricity prices are higher in most other countries. Although this is of some concern in terms of increased running costs, as the system described is a net electricity producer, this is likely to make the system more economically viable. However, most of the electricity in Australia is generated from coal and natural gas, and as such has higher asso-

P.K. Campbell et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 5056

55

ciated greenhouse gas emissions; this system may not result in such favourable overall greenhouse gas emissions in other countries, due to smaller offsets. The key area of sensitivity and uncertainty in the pond production system is the growth rate of the algae, which is why output data is provided for two different growth rates the expected minimum and maximum. However, as previously noted, the capital costs are a key uncertainty in terms of the economic costs; poor local soil conditions could lead to these being much higher. Construction of larger pilot plants and possibly even commercial plants over the next year or two will hopefully allow these costs to be better estimated. It is assumed that after lipid removal the algae will readily break down in anaerobic digestion. However, Yen and Brune (2007) suggest that an additional carbon source such as waste paper may be required to achieve optimal output. Future work should examine the possibility of producing valuable co-products from the algae in addition to biodiesel (and electricity), and other production systems that could be more economically viable, e.g. the production of algae using waste-water inputs (which may contain free nutrients, and produce potable water as a value output, in addition to fertilizer as suggested in Mulbry et al., 2008). In other countries differing requirements and limitations could alter the viability of these systems, as outlined above. Concerns over land and water availability and biodiversity impacts may result in algal pond systems not being viable in otherwise promising areas. Dramatic advancements in our understanding of algal production for biodiesel will no doubt require a working demonstration facility occupying multiple hectares to be built and run for a period of at least a year. At this stage the provision of production data will enable an analysis on the key variables for commercial success. 4. Conclusion Our results indicate with favourable soil conditions, present technology and high annual growth rates that it is economically viable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transport industry in Australia by growing algae and processing it into biodiesel. Additionally, based on the rate of technological advancement in the related ethanol biofuel industry, it is likely that new systems and processes will be introduced that could dramatically reduce the economic and energy costs of harvesting and processing the algae, making it even more attractive from both a GHG emission and economic point of view. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.048. References
Batten, D., OConnell, D., 2007. Biofuels in Australia Some Economic and Policy Issues, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Canberra, Australia. Beer, T., Grant, T., Campbell, P.K., 2007. The greenhouse and air quality emissions of biodiesel blends in Australia. Report Number KS54C/1/F2.27, CSIRO, August. Report for Caltex Pty Ltd. prepared with Financial Assistance from the Department of the Environment and Water Resources. Benemann, J.R., Oswald, W.J., 1996. Systems and economic analysis of microalgae ponds for conversion of CO2 to biomass. Report to the Department of Energy, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.

Benneman, J., 2003. Bioxation of CO2 with microalgae technology roadmap. Report to the US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown-Pittsburgh, January 14. Campbell, P.K., Beer, T., Batten, D., 2009. Greenhouse gas sequestration by algae energy and greenhouse gas life cycle studies. In: Proceedings of the 6th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment, Melbourne, February, included as supporting documentation; last accessed 3rd June 2010 from http:// www.csiro.au/resources/Greenhouse-Sequestration-Algae.html. Chisti, Y., 2007. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnology Advances 25, 294306. Clarens, A.F., Resurreccion, E.P., White, M.A., Colosi, L.M., 2010. Environmental life cycle comparison of algae to other bioenergy feedstocks. Environmental Science and Technology 44, 18131819. Comar, C.L., Nelson, N., 1975. Health effects of fossil fuel combustion products: report of a workshop. Environmental Health Perspectives 12, 149170. Crutzen, P.J., Mosier, A.R., Smith, K.A., Winiwarter, W., 2008. N2O release from agrobiofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 8, 389395. Damiani, M.C., Popovich, C.A., Constenla, D., Leonardi, P.I., 2010. Lipid analysis in Haematococcus pluvialis to assess its potential use as a biodiesel feedstock. Bioresource Technology 101 (11), 38013807. June. DCC (Department of Climate Change), 2009. Strengthening Australias National Ambition for 2020 Submission to the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, May, last accessed 3rd June 2010 at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/international/ pubs/submission_australia%27s_national_ambition2020.pdf. Edwards, R., Szekeres, S., Neuwahl, F., Mahieu, V., 2008. Biofuels in the European context: facts and uncertainties report of the JRC, edited by G. De Santi, JRC (Joint Research Centre), EC (European Commission), JRC44464. Erisman, J.W., van Grinsven, H., Leip, A., Mosier, A., Bleeker, A., 2010. Nitrogen and biofuels: an overview of the current state of knowledge. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 86 (2), 211223. ELI (Environmental Law Institute), 2009. Estimating US Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 20022008, September, last accessed 3rd June 2010 at http:// www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=11358. Farrell, A.E., Plevin, R.J., Turner, B.T., Jones, A.D., OHare, M., Kammen, D.M., 2006. Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311, 506 508. Gnansounou, E., Dauriat, A., Villegas, J., Panichelli, L., 2009. Life cycle assessment of biofuels: energy and greenhouse gas balances. Bioresource Technology 100 (21), 49194930. November. Grant, T., Beer, T., 2008. Life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from irrigated maize and their signicance in the value chain. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 375381. Huntley, M.E., Redalje, D.G., 2007. CO2 mitigation and renewable oil from photosynthetic microbes: a new appraisal. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12, 573608. Jorquera, O., Kiperstok, A., Sales, E.A., Embiruu, M., Ghirardi, M.L., 2010. Comparative energy life-cycle analyses of microalgal biomass production in open ponds and photobioreactors. Bioresource Technology 101 (4), 14061413. Feb. Lardon, L., Hlias, A., Sialve, B., Steyer, J.P., Bernard, O., 2009. Life-cycle assessment of biodiesel production from microalgae. Environmental Science and Technology 43 (17), 64756481. Mulbry, W., Kondrad, S., Pizarro, C., Kebedewesthead, E., 2008. Treatment of dairy manure efuent using freshwater algae: algal productivity and recovery of manure nutrients using pilot-scale algal turf scrubbers. Bioresource Technology 99 (17), 81378142. November. NRDC (Natural Resources Defence Council), 2006. Ethanol: Energy Well Spent A Survey of Studies Published Since 1990. NRDC, February. Parliament of Australia, 2006. Government assistance to alternative transport fuels. Research Note No. 9 200607, 9th November, last accessed 3rd June 2010 at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/RN/2006-07/07rn09.htm. Pimentel, D., 2003. Ethanol fuels: energy balance, economics and environmental impacts are negative. Natural Resources Research 12 (2). Pimentel, D., Patzek, T.W., 2005. Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood: biodiesel production using soybean and sunower. Natural Resources Research 14 (1). Regan, D.L., Gartside, G., 1983. Liquid fuels from micro-algae in Australia, CSIRO publishing: South Melbourne. Victoria, Australia. Sazdanoff, N., 2006. Modeling and Simulation of the Algae to Biodiesel Fuel Cycle. Honors Undergraduate Thesis for College of Engineering, Ohio State University, last accessed 3rd June 2010 at https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/ bitstream/1811/5981/1/Modeling_and_Simulation_of_the_Algae_to_Biodiesel_ Fuel_Cycle-Sazdanoff_undergrad_thesis.pdf. Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., Yu, T., 2008. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319 (5867), 12381240. Sheehan, J., Dunahay, T., Benemann, J., Roessler, P., 1988. A look back at the US Department of Energys Aquatic Species Program: biodiesel from algae, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Report NREL/TP-580-24190. Stephens, E., Ross, I.L., King, Z., Mussgnug, J.H., Kruse, O., Posten, C., Borowitzka, M., Hankamer, B., 2010. An economic and technical evaluation of microalgal biofuels. Nature Biotechnology 28, 126128. US EPA, 2002. A comprehensive analysis of biodiesel impacts on exhaust emissions, October 2002 Draft Technical Report EPA420-P-02-001, United States Environmental Protection Agency, October.

56

P.K. Campbell et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 5056 2008. High Food Prices: The What, Who, and How of Proposed Policy Actions, Policy Brief 1A. IFPRI, Washington DC. Yen, H., Brune, D.E., 2007. Anaerobic co-digestion of algal sludge and waste paper to produce methane. Bioresource Technology 98 (1), 130134.

van Harmelen, T., Oonk, H., 2006. Microalgae bioxation processes: applications and potential contributions to greenhouse gas mitigation options, TNO built environment and geosciences. Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. von Braun, J., Ahmed, A., Asenso-Okyere, K., Fan, S., Gulati, A., Hoddinott, J., PandyaLorch, R., Rosengrant, M., Ruel, M., Torero, M., van Rheenen, T., von Grebmer, K.,