INL/EXT-13-28890 Algal Supply System Design — Harmonized Version Jared Abodeely Daniel Stevens Allison Ray Kastli Schaller Deborah Newby March 2013 The INL is a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory operated by Battelle Energy Alliance INL/EXT-13-28890 Algal Supply System Design — Harmonized Version Jared Abodeely Daniel Stevens Allison Ray Kastli Schaller Deborah Newby March 2013 Idaho National Laboratory Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 http://www.inl.gov Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517 DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. Technical(cid:3)Memorandum(cid:3) To: Title: Algal Supply System Design—Harmonized Version Authors: Jared Abodeely, Daniel Stevens, Allison Ray, Kastli Schaller, Deborah Newby Platform: Date: March 2013 Number: TM2013-002-0 INL/EXT-13-28890 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Scope The objective of this design report is to provide an assessment of current technologies used for production, dewatering, and converting microalgae cultivated in open-pond systems to biofuel. The original draft design was created in 2011 and has subsequently been brought into agreement with the DOE harmonized model. The design report extends beyond this harmonized model to discuss some of the challenges with assessing algal production systems, including the ability to (1) quickly assess alternative algal production system designs, (2) assess spatial and temporal variability, and (3) perform large-scale assessments considering multiple scenarios for thousands of potential sites. The Algae Logistics Model (ALM) was developed to address each of these limitations of current modeling efforts to enable assessment of the economic feasibility of algal production systems across the United States. The (ALM) enables (1) dynamic assessments using spatiotemporal conditions, (2) exploration of algal production system design configurations, (3) investigation of algal production system operating assumptions, and (4) trade-off assessments with technology decisions and operating assumptions. The report discusses results from the ALM, which is used to assess the baseline design determined by harmonization efforts between U.S. DOE national laboratories. Productivity and resource assessment data is provided by coupling the ALM with the Biomass Assessment Tool developed at PNNL. This high-fidelity data is dynamically passed to the ALM and used to help better understand the impacts of spatial and temporal constraints on algal production systems by providing a cost for producing extracted algal lipids annually for each potential site. Expected Outcome The expected outcome of the design report is to provide an update on current technologies and methods for cultivating, dewatering, and converting microalgae into biofuel. In addition, assessments of these technologies within an algal production system are performed using the ALM with data provided by the Biomass Assessment Tool. This computational modeling approach enables the ability to seamlessly integrate technologies being built across the BETO research platform and the broader research community while using high-fidelity data from each potential site to explore design configurations and 1 of 35 operational assumptions that make biofuels produced from microalgae a viable option. The harmonized baseline design determined by the national laboratories serves as a starting point for exploring alternative algal production system designs and operation. Progress The previous algae design report was updated to discuss numerous technologies for cultivating, dewatering, and converting microalgae to biofuels. The harmonized baseline design for large-scale open-pond microalgae production systems is assessed using a computational approach that enables coupling of disparate datasets and models. Baseline performance and costs for algal production systems are characterized in terms of costs, material losses, and equipment performance. Several potential algal production sites are investigated to provide additional insight into the impacts of spatial and temporal variability on the cost of producing extracted algal lipids. Key Results See Design Report provided below. 2 of 35 CONTENTS 1.(cid:3) INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 5(cid:3) 1.1(cid:3) Benefits of Microalgae for Biofuel Production ........................................................................ 5(cid:3) 1.2(cid:3) Challenges for Microalgae-Based Biofuels Development ....................................................... 5(cid:3) 2.(cid:3) BIOLOGY OF MICROALGAE ........................................................................................................ 6(cid:3) 2.1(cid:3) Types of Microalgae ................................................................................................................ 6(cid:3) 2.2(cid:3) Composition and Oil Content................................................................................................... 7(cid:3) 2.3(cid:3) Cultivation .............................................................................................................................. 10(cid:3) 3.(cid:3) ENGINEERING DESIGN ............................................................................................................... 11(cid:3) 3.1(cid:3) Siting Considerations ............................................................................................................. 11(cid:3) 3.1.1(cid:3) Land Requirements ................................................................................................... 11(cid:3) 3.1.2(cid:3) Climate ...................................................................................................................... 11(cid:3) 3.2(cid:3) Open-Pond Design and Cultivation ....................................................................................... 14(cid:3) 3.2.1(cid:3) Earthwork and Raceway Development ..................................................................... 14(cid:3) 3.2.2(cid:3) Liner .......................................................................................................................... 14(cid:3) 3.2.3(cid:3) Water ......................................................................................................................... 15(cid:3) 3.2.4(cid:3) Nutrients and CO .................................................................................................... 15(cid:3) -2 3.2.5(cid:3) Mixing System .......................................................................................................... 15(cid:3) 3.2.6(cid:3) Carbonation systems ................................................................................................. 16(cid:3) 3.2.7(cid:3) Instrumentation for Cultivation ................................................................................. 16(cid:3) 3.2.8(cid:3) Inoculum Systems ..................................................................................................... 17(cid:3) 3.3(cid:3) Harvest and Dewatering ......................................................................................................... 18(cid:3) 3.3.1(cid:3) Natural Settling and Flocculation ............................................................................. 19(cid:3) 3.3.2(cid:3) Centrifugation ........................................................................................................... 20(cid:3) 3.3.3(cid:3) Drying, On-site Storage, and Transportation ............................................................ 22(cid:3) 3.4(cid:3) Conversion Pathways for Algal Biofuel Production .............................................................. 25(cid:3) 4.(cid:3) OPEN-POND PRODUCTION SYSTEM ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 27(cid:3) 5.(cid:3) CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 30(cid:3) 5.1(cid:3) Regional Assessment ............................................................................................................. 30(cid:3) 5.2(cid:3) Challenges and Future Work .................................................................................................. 30(cid:3) 6.(cid:3) REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 32(cid:3) FIGURES Figure 1. Green algae: Scenedesmus dimorphus (top left) and Chlorella sp. (top right); Diatoms, Cyclotella cryptica (bottom left) and Chaetoceros gracilis (bottom right). ................................. 7(cid:3) Figure 2. General chemical structure of lipids: top—triacylglycerides; bottom—phospholipid (www.LipidMAPS.org). ............................................................................................................... 9(cid:3) Figure 3. Potential microalgae farm sites in the conterminous United States (BAT assessment courtesy Pacific Northwest National Laboratory). ..................................................................... 12(cid:3) Figure 4. Regions inside the blue box with annual average temperatures above 15°C ideal for growing microalgae (Benneman 2008). ..................................................................................... 12(cid:3) 3 of 35 Figure 5. Annual solar radiation average for the United States .................................................................. 13(cid:3) Figure 6. Annual Average Horizontal Plane Pan Evaporation. .................................................................. 13(cid:3) Figure 7. Example of pond construction (<10-acre ponds) (Pecos, TX). ................................................... 14(cid:3) Figure 8. Example of a raceway paddle wheel system ............................................................................... 16(cid:3) Figure 9. Temperature/pH monitoring systems for algae cultivation. ........................................................ 17(cid:3) Figure 10. Inoculation pond configuration. ................................................................................................ 17(cid:3) Figure 11. Dewatering techniques, filtration (A-1,2), flocculation (B-1,2), and centrifugation (C-1,2)......................................................................................................................................... 18(cid:3) Figure 12. Example of algae flocculation ................................................................................................... 19(cid:3) Figure 13. Qualitative costs associated with % solids harvesting potential. ............................................... 20(cid:3) Figure 14. Cost assessment of the harmonized baseline design using high-fidelity productivity data with average annual TAG production. ................................................................................ 28(cid:3) Figure 15. Cost comparison for alternative designs for the Tampa, FL site. .............................................. 29(cid:3) Figure 16. Assessment of algae characteristics. .......................................................................................... 30(cid:3) TABLES Table 1. Lipid content and productivities of select microalgae species as adapted from Mata et al. (2010). .......................................................................................................................................... 8(cid:3) Table 2. Average biomass productivity for algae grown in outdoor ponds under nutrient-replete conditions, as adapted from Griffiths et al. (2009). ...................................................................... 8(cid:3) Table 3. Comparison of microalgae with other biodiesel feedstocks (DOE 2010). .................................... 10(cid:3) Table 4. Cultivation schemes with advantages and disadvantages (DOE 2010). ....................................... 10(cid:3) Table 5. Harvest techniques and % solid content output. ........................................................................... 21(cid:3) Table 6. Summary of drying methods available with their advantages and disadvantages as well as possible co-products and drying efficiency of algal biomass. ................................................ 23(cid:3) Table 7. Harmonized baseline design configuration with accompanying alternative design scenarios for the case study. ....................................................................................................... 29 4 of 35 Algal Supply System Design—Harmonized Version 1. INTRODUCTION Increasing energy demands, diminishing petroleum reserves, growing dependence on foreign oil imports, and rising oil prices have fostered considerable interest in renewable fuels derived from biomass. The U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) expanded the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring that U.S. transportation fuels contain a minimum of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, to include advanced and cellulosic biofuels and biodiesel derived from biomass. Algal biofuels have the potential to make a significant contribution to achieving these targets and moving the nation toward energy independence. The U.S. federal government invested $800M in biofuels research as part of the American Recovery and Renewal Act. Funds from this investment have been allocated to the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Biomass Program to invest in research, development, and deployment of commercial-scale algae-to-biofuel processes (DOE 2010). A number of private companies are also making substantial investments in this area. This report presents the current state of technologies for cultivation, harvesting and dewatering, extraction, and conversion of microalgae to biofuels within an open-pond production system. Algal production systems are assessed based on the harmonized baseline with high-fidelity productivity and resource assessment data using dynamic methodologies to capture the spatial and temporal impacts on the feasibility of producing biofuels from microalgae. 1.1 Benefits of Microalgae for Biofuel Production Biofuels, specifically biodiesel, derived from microalgae have received considerable interest as an alternative to conventional fossil fuels. Utilization of microalgae for biofuel production has the potential for additional benefits, including wastewater remediation, CO sequestration, and production of valuable 2 co-products such as ethanol, methane, fertilizer, and livestock feed. Other benefits of microalgae in comparison with terrestrial feedstocks used for biofuels include high lipid content, growth versatility in various climates, high productivity, and use for fuel production is not directly competitive with food production such as was the case for other feedstocks (Wang et al. 2008). In addition, biodiesel produced from algal lipids has gained popularity because it is non-toxic, biodegradable, and produces significantly fewer emissions relative to diesel derived from petroleum sources (Bajpai and Tyagi 2006; Sheehan et al. 2000). Furthermore, algal biodiesel has enhanced cold-temperature performance, energy density, and storage stability compared to traditional petroleum fuels and has received considerable attention as an aviation fuel (Bruton et al. 2009). 1.2 Challenges for Microalgae-Based Biofuels Development Major research and development challenges of algal biofuels include significant technology gaps in these areas: feedstock, infrastructure, harvest/dewatering, extraction, and conversion. For open-pond algal production systems, algal characteristics such as productivity, lipid content, and predator resistance are important attributes for creating high yielding, sustainable systems Algal production system location and design are important for determining efficiency of nutrient and CO delivery and productivity. Co-location with wastewater and industrial facilities can provide 2 accessible and inexpensive media, nutrients, and CO needed for cultivation, but co-location can also 2 limit the siting of large-scale open-pond production systems. Typically co-location opportunities will be close to urban areas, raising both property costs and social concerns. As a result, other options for nutrient and CO supply must often be considered. With current technologies, harvest and dewatering is an energy 2 intensive process for reducing moisture content to get the algae to a useable format. 5 of 35 Most microalgae to biofuels processes, like algal biology, cultivation, harvesting/dewatering, extraction, and conversion are the focus of many R&D projects being pursued by national laboratories, industry, and academia. Current challenges for producing biofuels from microalgae include: (cid:120) Production at a cost that is competitive with petroleum-based fuels poses considerable challenge to adoption of this technology (cid:120) Development of algal production technology is in the earliest stages (cid:120) Growth at commercial scale, in order to be successful, requires strain development (cid:120) Growth conditions that enable rapid growth of high-lipid producing strains that is inhibitory to competing organisms are needed (cid:120) Algal harvesting is estimated to consume 20–30% of production costs (Gudin and Thepenier 1986) (cid:120) A huge challenge of harvesting algal biomass entails concentrating low-density cultures by as much as 1000-times for lipid extraction to be feasible (cid:120) Significant engineering-research efforts must be aimed at developing cost-effective algal harvesting (Pienkos and Darzins 2009) (cid:120) Nutrient recycle (cid:120) Credits for wastewater treatment and by-products. 2. BIOLOGY OF MICROALGAE As mentioned previously, microalgae show significant promise as a biofuel feedstock. However their small size, diversity, and dilute concentrations even in growth ponds pose challenges. Thus, a basic understanding of microalgae is warranted. The following section describes the types of microalgae and some basic properties that may influence their growth, harvesting, and energy content. Microalgae are phototrophic eukaryotic microorganisms. They grow ubiquitously in the environment, in cold or hot climates, in lakes, streams, oceans, ice, and moist soil. They are photosynthetic, converting CO and light 2 to O and simple sugars within membrane-bound organelles called chloroplasts. Microalgae are 2 responsible for the origin of the O on Earth and nearly 50% of the global net primary production 2 supporting life. They are unicellular but sometimes occur in colonies or aggregates of cells (Brock et al. 1994). 2.1 Types of Microalgae There are three general types of unicellular algae: green, brown, and red. Green algae belong to the group Chlorophyta and inhabit freshwater, marine, and moist terrestrial ecosystems. Even though their main carbon reserve is starch, they are known to produce large amounts of lipids under nutrient stress (Hu et al. 2008). Abundant lipid producers in the group Chlorophyta include Chlorella vulgaris and Chlorella protothecoides. Brown algae belong to the group Chrysophyta and include diatoms that have lipid, not starch, as their carbon reserve and do not require nutrient stress to produce it. Organisms in the group Chrysophyta inhabit the same ecosystems as Clorophyta. Chaetoceros gracilis and Chaetoceros muelleri, two diatoms, are known to be excellent lipid producers. Figure 1 shows microscopic images of two green algae (Scenedesmus dimorphus and Chlorella sp.) and two diatoms (Cyclotella cryptica and Chaetoceros gracilis). Lastly, red algae, which lack flagella, are less known for lipid production and belong to the group Rhodophyta. Some examples of red algae include Palmaria palmate and Coralline algae. They inhabit mainly marine ecosystems. 6 of 35 Similar in appearance and found in many of the same environments, oxygenic phototrophs, cyanobacteria, are classified as prokaryotes; however they are still considered “algae” in some contexts. Cyanobacteria are generally more adaptable to extreme hot environments, such as hot springs, compared to algae (Brock et al. 1994). Cyanobacteria are also known to produce lipids. Figure 1. Green algae: Scenedesmus dimorphus (top left) and Chlorella sp. (top right); Diatoms, Cyclotella cryptica (bottom left) and Chaetoceros gracilis (bottom right). 2.2 Composition and Oil Content Algae contain three major components: proteins, carbohydrates, and oils (lipids). Lipids have historically been the component of primary interest for biofuels production; however, algal components can be used for other valuable co-products as well, such as animal feed, pigments, fertilizers, poly-unsaturated fatty acids, and anti-oxidants (DOE 2010). Recently alternative conversion scenarios including hydrothermal liquefaction and pyrolysis, which capitalize on the energy content of the whole cells, have gained interest. Some microalgae are known to produce large amounts of oil within their cellular structure. Lipid production depends on many factors such as growth (cell-division), temperature, pH, salinity, and availability of micronutrients (Araujo et al. 2011). As reported in a review by Mata et al. (2010), the variability in lipid content of various algae is evident, but so is the growth production potential (Table 1). In some algal strains, increased lipid production occurs by stressing the organisms. Nutrient limitation, for 7 of 35