Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« GM Debuts First Turbo Direct Injection Powertrain in a China-Built Product | Main | DENSO Develops Exhaust Gas Temperature Sensor With Improved Temperature Detection Accuracy »

Print this post

A Project-Based Perspective: Algae Biofuels Economic Viability

21 April 2009

Perspective by Jeff H. Hassannia, Vice President, Business Development Diversified Energy Corporation

The commercial viability of algae-based biofuels production is ultimately going to depend on economics. Regardless of whatever advances might come in terms of technological and biological breakthroughs, the fact remains that the commercial marketplace will not have an appetite for funding capital intensive energy projects unless the risk-return ratio is acceptable to debt and equity financiers.

A number of companies and government organizations have previously assessed different production designs and offered estimates of costs for algae systems. The most popular of designs previously analyzed include open ponds, open raceways, and closed photobioreactors. Generally these assessments have taken a first-order look at capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. The capital costs are usually broken down into costs associated with algal biomass growth, harvesting (removal of the biomass from the culture), dewatering (getting the algae to an acceptable concentration for further processing), and algal oil extraction systems.

In addition, there are more traditional project costs such as engineering, permitting, infrastructure preparation, balance of plant, installation and integration, and contractor fees. O&M costs generally include expenses for nutrients (generally N-P-K), CO2 distribution, water replenishment due to evaporative losses, utilities, components replacement, and labor costs. In addition to capital and O&M costs, the costs of the land (or leasing) must also be taken into account as this can be a significant expense.

Key Takeaways
  1. Large-scale commercial algae ventures focused solely on biofuels will have a VERY difficult time overcoming capital and O&M cost hurdles required of the marketplace for quite some time.

  2. The government and private enterprise must continue to focus on R&D to reduce costs and enhance yields. Comprehensive, logical, and focused R&D needs to be put in place.

  3. The industry (today) should focus on business models that grow algae for other high-value products, with biofuels production as a secondary product until the market fully matures.

—Jeff Hassannia

The data that has been publicly released shows major variations in capital and O&M costs. Some entities have reported capital costs as low as $10k/acre, while others have shown costs approaching $300k/acre. These wide variations in costs are also seen in O&M projections. For example, Sandia National Laboratories and National Renewable Energy Laboratory recently conducted an assessment of previously reported, open literature and concluded that average capital costs were roughly $57k/acre (with a 1-sigma standard deviation of a whopping $72k/acre) of utilized surface area and corresponding annual O&M costs were $27k/acre (standard deviation of $25k/acre).[1]

This data represents over a dozen different types of open and closed architectures, albeit some of the data is older and obviously doesn’t reflect the newest results being achieved today. It is therefore challenging to estimate the costs of such systems with even a modest degree of confidence. This uncertainty has been driven by three fundamental reasons:

  1. There are no large-scale commercial algae biofuels production systems with which to develop and substantiate the data;

  2. Those companies developing new technologies and architectures are very protective of their detailed financial data; and

  3. Because of the immaturity of the market, there are many unknowns coupled with a number of companies making aggressive (and likely overly optimistic) claims.

The approach taken here is to address algae economics from a different perspective than has been the norm. Instead of forecasting the likely costs for capital and O&M for a given architecture and its reported yield, let’s assess what a project would require in order to make it commercially viable.

That is, using traditional discounted cash flow analyses, along with justifiable assumptions on yields and revenues from algal biomass, what would the capital and O&M costs have to be to satisfy the demands of those financing an algae biofuels project? The figure below is the result of such analysis. The vertical axis represents the “total installed costs” of a project—made up of the cost of the land, capital equipment, installation, and other traditional project costs as described earlier.

The land accounted for here represents the utilized surface footprint of algal biomass growth systems undergoing photosynthesis, not the gross land area. Therefore this likely underestimates the true land costs as there will be large tracts of acreage (sometimes as much as 2X) not directly contributing to photosynthesis, but instead providing for access ways, harvesting, dewatering, oil extraction, pipes and plumbing, storage, laboratory space, among other functions. The horizontal axis represents O&M costs as discussed earlier.

The lines on the graph depict what are called “zero net present value (NPV)” curves. These lines represent what a project would need to achieve in total installed and O&M costs to be economically viable from a commercial market perspective. Based on the economic assumptions shown in the lower right box, projects that can achieve costs on or below these NPV lines will be capable of providing the required returns to the equity and debt providers— which will ultimately be the financing mechanism for funding such projects.

If your project falls on the line, you will be able to return 30% (average) per annum to equity providers and 12% (average) per annum to debt providers over the 20-year project life. If you are above the line, the project will fail to meet these required returns, while if you are below the line there will be excess profit for the owners of the project. For example, the bottom line (in orange) shows that if your total installed costs are $20k/acre, then your annual O&M costs must be roughly $4k/acre or lower. On the other hand, if your total installed costs drop to $10k/acre, your annual O&M costs can now be as high as $6k/acre and still be economically viable.

Diversified
Click to enlarge.

The figure provides for a very powerful and intuitive tool to understand the economic challenges facing the algae biofuels market.

The orange line represents a yield of 25 grams/m2-day and a sales price (out of the algae facility) of $200 per dry ton of biomass produced. While yield projections are a subject of major debate and speculation, this productivity level represents what most experts would consider as a reasonable and substantiated expectation, one that is plausible for future large-scale algae production systems with sustained operations.

Likewise, $200/ton is a metric often quoted and likely represents the low-end of revenue potential by simply assuming $0.10/lb—the middle ground for estimates of algal biomass usage as a high antioxidant animal or fish feed (generally quoted as somewhere in the range of $0.07 – $0.13/lb). The solid orange line thus illustrates the magnitude of the challenge at hand.

Very few organizations have discussed total installed costs of less than $40k/acre. For reference, the Sandia and NREL data point is plotted on the figure as a red circle. When O&M costs are factored into the analyses, one must now move down the orange curve to lower and lower total installed cost hurdles. For example, fertilizer such as N-P-K costs approximately $300 – $400/ton. It is reasonable to assume that an “average” algae strain will require one ton of fertilizer for every three tons of dry algal biomass produced. At a productivity of 25 grams/m2-day, annual fertilizer costs alone would easily equate to over $4k/acre.

Add onto this very sizeable energy costs for pumping and flowing water, capturing and delivering CO2, and harvesting the algae and extracting the oils. Finally, labor, water make-up, and hardware replacement costs are added to the expenses. It is easy to see how O&M costs alone can derail a project’s viability regardless of how low (even to zero) total installed costs become, as evidenced by the Sandia/NREL O&M average being off the graph’s scale at $27k/acre-year.

The solid green NPV line may represent a more reasonable case for algae biomass systems focused on biofuels production. In this case it was assumed that the algae being grown contain 25% total lipid content, of which 80% is extractable and of the desired characteristics (i.e., nonpolar lipids) for biofuels production. 25% total lipid content represents a reasonable and substantiated claim for an algae strain that can be grown sustainably, at large scale, in outdoor systems.

In this scenario, for every ton of algae produced 400 pounds of oils for biofuels and 1,600 pounds of biomass for animal/fish feed would then be available. Assuming $2/gallon for the oils sold out of the algae project, and $0.10/lb for the remaining biomass, this equates to roughly $266/ton for the algae produced. Based on the earlier discussion of O&M costs, one can quickly see that even at $266/ton the economics appear very challenging given the state of the industry today and for the near-term future.

On the other hand, NPV lines such as the solid blue or dashed green line begin to show an entirely different and much more plausible story for the potential of algae biofuels. The blue line represents achieving almost twice the $/ton sales price of algae biomass discussed previously. How is this possible? Using the same assumptions as earlier, algal oil would have to be sold for prices in excess of $6/gallon—which could be possible should corresponding petroleum prices reach these levels. Alternatively, this could be achieved by focusing on strains and production architectures that extract other, higher-value components from the algae such as nutraceutical products.

The dashed green curve represents the same assumptions as the solid green line, but in this case assumes achieving productivity numbers twice that deemed reasonable today (i.e., 50 grams/m2-day). Quite possibly the eventual answer will be a combination of greater productivities coupled with a focus on co-generation of higher value products from algae. In addition, emphasis needs to be placed on reducing O&M costs across all elements of the algae production value chain.

By assessing the viability of algae projects from a true market perspective, it is clearly apparent that total installed costs and O&M costs will be a major hurdle to future commercialization. Technologies must be developed to reduce costs and increase yields. This can be accomplished only through a focused, comprehensive, and well-funded R&D program. In parallel, the industry should consider business models that not only look at the bioenergy potential of algae through the transportation fuels market, but also consider other higher-value products in order to make the economics achievable. And this is ever so important in the early phases of this promising, yet challenging industry.

[Diversified Energy specializes in the advancement of a series of promising alternative and renewable energy technologies: an advanced gasification technique with feedstock flexibility targeted for industrial syngas applications and liquid fuels production; a biofuels conversion process that can take any renewable oil and produce transportation fuels that are physically and chemically identical to petroleum; and an algal biomass cultivation system. In the context of the last element, Diversified has “gotten dirty” themselves with algae.]

[1] Phillip T. Pienkos, “Historical Overview of Algal Biofuel Technoeconomic Analyses,” National Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap Workshop, 9-10 December 2008

April 21, 2009 in Algae, Algal Fuels, Perspective | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01156f3cfcb2970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Project-Based Perspective: Algae Biofuels Economic Viability:

Comments

Liquid fuels will always be worth around 3 times less than electricity due the conversion efficiency of heat engines, and the superior efficiency of heat pump heating (3 units of heat for 1 unit of electricity consumption) and electric transport (typically about 3 miles / kWh) (30mpg is roughly 1 mile per kWh)

Much better economically and environmentally to turn sunlight directly into electricity (@20% efficiency) on the roof of buildings where it is being used, with no water use, no fertilizers and no transmission costs.

Biomass should be grown for making lightweight composites not fuel.

PV + CSP and electric transport in combination can help flatten the demand curve on the grid and allow nuclear plants to replace coal burners, a further mix of Wind, Hydro and CCGT can provide cheap reliable power.

The only reason we need biofuels to "keep our existing infrastructure running" is because major manufacturers haven't been electrifying drive trains. Hybrid technology is 10 years old, 1/3 of all cars on the road today could be hybrid meaning with a simple addition of a larger battery they could be given 2, 5, 10 or more miles of all electric range with minimal cost & effort.


Its time to drill the Saudi Arabia of nega barrels.

Algae technology is very young. Current costs are estimated to be about $30/gallon. Certain breakthrough technologies could change this dramatically, such as AlgaeVenture systems' dewatering system which supposedly dewaters algae at $1 per ton
http://www.algaevs.com/products-technology
De-watering/harvesting accounts for about 50% of the cost in production of biodiesel from algae, depending upon the system.
Last week we learned of a potential means of pulling fats out of algae with nanobeads.
Diesel does have, what, about 1000 times the energy in it per weight as do batteries, and that weight disappears with use.

Error, dewatering at $1.92 per ton is what they are saying.

No, what they are saying is 'it doesn't matter if it works, it doesn't matter if it's beneficial, it doesn't matter if it's the best alternative, what matters is if someone can make money out of the idea.'

Will we be trading our dependency on the oil princes of Saudi Arabia for a dependency on biofuel princes? Remember it doesn't matter if you CAN grow your own fuel in America; the fact is it WILL be grown where it is cheapest to grow and then imported.

@ Ai Vin,

If we diversify the supply of oil, by allowing tropical areas to become biodiesel producers...that has many pros and cons, but it does create a competitor for traditional petroleum, which is to the good. I agree that eventually we want to cover 10,000 square miles of Nevada, Arizona, California deserts with CSP to power all our vehicles, but until then, removing CO2 from smokestacks and using it to feed high-lipid algae could be a help. Part of the economics the above analysis excludes is fees paid by polluters to have 80% of the CO2 and NO2 removed from their emissions by algae processing. That is an additional source of income for algae farmers. I'm not sure what it is worth per ton, but it ought to add a few bucks.

Looks like only major govt subsidies and R&D can jump start this industry. And, there's not much of that in the offing from Obama.
either that or a company that is completely dedicated to this one path. (unlikely)

There is also a huge market and higher return on farming algae as a diet supplement for humans or a feed for animals.

I may well end up being better for health and environment to grow algae to feed to fish (which could also be farmed from the waste heat of the power stations) which become a larger part of the diet displacing red meat and the environmental impacts of producing it.

This industry needs a decade (or so) of R&D to work out the best processes.

Long term there's some great uses for a CO2 neutral biofuel from saltwater based Algea - jet aircraft, large diesel applications etc., but they've to a ways to go to get there.

The author of the above report of DEC has not been entirely forthright in disclosure. DEC has it's own proposed algal cultivation system trademarked Simgae. From their webpage:

"Simgae™ annual yield is expected to be on the order of 22 tons of dry algal biomass per gross acre (equating to a reactor surface area productivity of 23 g/m2-day), with oil content anywhere from 20 - 30%. This yield and oil content range is dependent upon a number of conditions, including sunlight and temperature, sources of CO2 and nutrients, algae strain used, and emphasis on oil versus carbohydrate/protein production."
This is actually an interesting idea - utilizing standard ag equipment like plastic "agriculture mulch" and extrusion machinery. They claim they're nearing a demo stage. They expect ORNL to be a partner.

This report should be considered in this light.

COMBINE AN ALGAE BASED SYSTEM FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCTION WITH GENETICALLY ALTERED ALGAE THAT PRODUCES HYDROGEN AS ITS PRIMARY BYPRODUCT. INCLUDE ALGAE'S NATURAL NEED FOR CO2. MAYBE ADD SEWAGE WATER AS A FEEDSTOCK. ALL IDEAS FROM ANYONE IS NEEDED TO SAVE US FROM OURSELVES.

Okay kids, we got a great idea!! Let's CREATE our own "conservative" character for our sim!! That way, we can put words in his mouth that the heretics won't expect! Is that great or what? It's like having a Rush Limbaugh puppet - that looks reel.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2014 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group