Algal Research 4 (2014) 76–88

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Algal Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/algal

A critical analysis of paddlewheel-driven raceway ponds for algal biofuel

production at commercial scales
Jonathan N. Rogers a, Julian N. Rosenberg a,b, Bernardo J. Guzman a, Victor H. Oh a, Luz Elena Mimbela c,
Abbas Ghassemi c, Michael J. Betenbaugh a, George A. Oyler a,b,d, Marc D. Donohue a,b,e,⁎
a
Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21218, United States
b
Synaptic Research, LLC, 1448 South Rolling Road, Baltimore, MD 21227, United States
c
Institute for Energy & the Environment, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, United States
d
Department of Biochemistry, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1901 Vine Street, Lincoln, NE 68588, United States
e
Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, 11100 Johns Hopkins Road, Laurel, MD 20723, United States

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

Article history: Microalgae have been promoted as the next frontier of green biotechnology and gained widespread attention as
Received 11 June 2013 desirable feedstocks for biofuels. Using conservative assumptions for microalgal growth rates (15 g m−2 d−1)
Received in revised form 13 September 2013 and total lipid content (25%), the entire “pond-to-pump” lifecycle of algal biofuels for 1000 bbl d−1 of crude
Accepted 6 November 2013
algae oil production is modeled with approximately 4875 ha of raceway ponds for solar collection and cultivation
Available online 19 December 2013
and 1463 MLD (385 MGD) of water handling capacity in the current analysis. Technoeconomic analysis based on
Keywords:
an array of 6000 modular 0.8 ha (2 acre) paddlewheel-driven ponds in New Mexico identified several cost bar-
Algae riers and resources challenges (i.e., nutrient and water resources). For 10- and 20-year capital return scenarios,
Biofuel the cost of algal oil production – $4.10 L−1 ($15.52 gal−1) and $3.21 L−1 ($12.14 gal−1), respectively – requires
Raceway ponds substantial capital and facility maintenance investments with principal cost sensitivities attributed to extraction
Sustainability efficiency and lipid content. Baseline conditions result in an energy return on investment (EROI) of 2.73. Uncer-
Technoeconomic analysis tainty in energy requirements for paddlewheels as well as water supply and circulation significantly affect the
EROI and operating costs. Alternative strategies to address the major cost barriers are needed for algal biofuels
to realize their full potential.
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

1. Introduction
The social, environmental, and economic pressures of human activi-
ty require ever increasing energy resources. The rise of developing na-
tions coupled with a predicted expansion of the world population to
at least 9 billion by 2050 [1] correlates to a global increase in energy
use from 533 quadrillion (1015) kJ in 2008 to 812 quadrillion kJ by
2035 [2]. Photosynthetic biomass grown as a bioenergy crop has the po-
tential to contribute a significant amount of renewable fuel while simul-
taneously absorbing point sources of carbon dioxide (CO2). The United
States has a goal of 17% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020. Current
projections show energy-related CO2 emissions in 2020 to be only 9%
below their 2005 level [2]. Therefore, an intensified expansion of carbon
neutral renewables will be necessary to meet the milestone within the
coming decade.
Microalgae are perhaps the most prolific source of photosynthetic
biomass on the planet. The controlled cultivation of microalgae on
large-scale farms offers an avenue to enhance domestic energy produc-
tion while minimizing land resources requirements. In 2010, liquid
biofuels represented only 1% of the total U.S. fuel portfolio and are

Abbreviations: AD, Anaerobic Digestion; ANL, Argonne National Laboratory; APD, Algae Process Description Tool; ASP, Aquatic Species Program; BD, Biodiesel; BGY, Billion Gallons per
Year; BLY, Billion Liters per Year; CO2, Carbon Dioxide; COP, Cost of Production; DAF, Dissolved Air Flotation; DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; DAP, Diammonium
Phosphate; DOE, U.S. Department of Energy; DW, Dry Weight; EE, Extraction Efficiency; EERE, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy; EIA, Energy Information Administration; EISA,
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; EROI, Energy Return on Investment; FWC, Flue-gas and Wastewater Co-utilization; g L− 1,
Grams per Liter; GHG, Green House Gas; ha, Hectare; HDPE, High-Density Polyethylene; HRP, High Rate Ponds; kW, Kilowatts; kWh, Kilowatt Hours; LANL, Los Alamos National
Laboratory; LCA, Life-Cycle Analysis; LEA, Lipid Extracted Algae; LLE, Liquid–Liquid Extraction; MGY, Million Gallons per Year; MGD, Million Gallons per Day; MLD, Million Liters per
Day; NMSU, New Mexico State University; NREL, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; NWIS, National Water Information System; PA, Polyacrylamide; PBR, Photobioreactor; PE,
Photosynthetic Efficiency; RA, Resource Assessment; RD, Renewable Diesel; RFS, Renewable Fuel Standard; TEA, Techno-Economic Analysis; USGS, U. S. Geological Survey; WWT,
Wastewater Treatment; WWTP, Wastewater Treatment Plant.
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21218, United States.
E-mail address: mdd@jhu.edu (M.D. Donohue).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.11.007
2211-9264/© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
 J.N. Rogers et al. / Algal Research 4 (2014) 76–88
expected to reach 4% by 2035 with nearly all of their consumption at-
tributed to the transportation sector [2]. Algal biofuels may ease this in-
evitable energy transition by fulfilling a significant role in our portfolio
of alternatives to fossil fuels.
Microalgae have been promoted as one of the more promising third-
generation biofuels for their ability to accumulate substantial amounts
of lipids, divide rapidly, grow in low quality water, absorb CO2, and
grow on non-arable land [3]. There is a wealth of literature that docu-
ments the commercial scale growth of various microalgal species for
natural products as well as the progression of both basic and applied bi-
ological research, improvements to photobioreactor (PBR) and pond de-
sign, and lifecycle analyses of algal biofuels [4–6]. The mass cultivation
of microalgae was pioneered in the early 1950s with Chlorella [7] and
quickly transitioned into a modular production process using Oswald's
raceway design termed “high rate ponds” (HRPs) for large-scale
recirculating algae cultivation [8]. Although there is some debate sur-
rounding the “carbon neutrality” of biofuels in general, microalgae
offer significant advantages over other alternatives. Yet, the lack of uni-
formity in these technologies and microbial crops still makes assess-
ment of the costs and energy requirements complex. Some of the
major factors affecting algal biomass productivity include inherent pho-
tosynthetic constraints as well as the bioprocessing challenges related
to large-scale cultivation of microbes in water.
When cultivating algae in an artificial environment (e.g., outdoor
pond), it is essential that growth factors are plentiful in order to maxi-
mize growth rates [9]. While CO2 can be acquired from the atmosphere,
it is commonly fed into algae media to improve production [10–12]. In
addition to CO2, nitrogen and phosphorus are the major nutrients
required for algae growth. It has become an accepted measure that ma-
rine plankton have relatively constrained elemental ratios of 106:16:1
(C:N:P) [13–15]. Although some algae species, primarily cyanobacteria,
can fix nitrogen from the air [16,17], most microalgae require a soluble
form, such as urea or ammonia [18].
In raceway ponds, paddlewheels are used to maintain constant
mixing of the algae. A single paddlewheel has been shown to provide
sufficient mixing for algae biomass cultivation for arrays of connect-
ed ponds covering areas as large as 5 ha [19,20]. While this shows
promise for paddlewheels in HRPs, larger ponds require scale-up of
the number of paddlewheels to maintain sufficient mixing. With a
turbulent mixing velocity, the culture can maintain a uniform densi-
ty. The addition of eddies generated from the paddlewheel helps to
reduce the residence time of the algae in the dark regime. At a low
velocity, laminar flow will decrease the productivity of the pond;
yet, as the velocity increases, the power required to generate the
new velocity increases cubically. This presents problems for the
mixing velocity at rates greater than 30 cm s− 1, specifically mani-
fested in increased energy costs [21].
Algae based biofuels received recent support as qualified feed-
stock, making algae-derived biofuels eligible for $1.01 tax credit
per gal (Section 40 of United States Code). Despite the general public
awareness of the various biological sources of liquid fuels and their
potentially significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) reduc-
tion [22], there remains little consensus on the lifecycle analyses
(LCA) and TEA of these biofuels [23,24]. Some of the most recent in-
formation on algal biofuel technoeconomics shows that algae may
have a favorable energy return on investment (EROI) compared to
fossil fuels, first-, and even second generation biofuels [25]. Howev-
er, the existence of multiple biofuel production pathways, different
productivity assumptions and limited commercial-scale production
makes it difficult to establish theoretical mass and energy balance
equations [26].
In the present study, the production costs and EROI of a hypothetical
algae farm and biocrude oil refinery of commercially relevant produc-
tion capacity (1000 bbl d−1) were evaluated for a variety of operating
scenarios. The overall feasibility of this facility and its scalability to
meet 5 and 10 billion gallon per year (BGY) production goals,
77
equivalent to 18.9 and 37.8 billion liters per year (BLY), were explored
for the geography and climate of New Mexico based on technical and
economic analyses. In particular, this algae oil process model focuses
on upstream cultivation using conventional technologies (i.e., raceway
ponds) and locally sourced water and energy inputs. The impact of
well-established harvesting, dewatering, and separating of methodolo-
gies on the sustainability of downstream processing was also assessed.
The results of this technoeconomic study identify the major energy de-
mands, water requirements, and capital investments associated with
traditional algal biofuel production. The ultimate conclusions regarding
cost of production (COP) and sustainability are held in comparison with
empirical data from the New Mexico State University (NMSU)
microalgae cultivation testbed.
2. Methods
2.1. Production assumptions and scalability
The model in the present study was developed in order to estimate
the scale of a facility to produce 1000 barrels of crude algae oil per day
(bbl d− 1). Nutrient demand was determined from the Redfield ratio
elemental composition of C106H181O45N16P, resulting in nutrient re-
quirements of 525.1 mg C g− 1-algae DW, 91.9 mg N g− 1-algae DW,
and 12.7 mg P g−1-algae DW. All references made to algal biomass in
this model pertain to the biomass dry weight (DW). As a simplifying as-
sumption, a year averaged microalgal growth rate of 15 g m−2 d−1 was
chosen. Estimates for growth culture density (0.5 g L−1), harvesting
rate (10%), extraction efficiency (80%), and lipid content (25%) were
used as the baseline condition of the model. Due to the uncertainty of
lipid fractions and the effects of specific growth conditions, all lipids
were assumed to be useable as a precursor to renewable diesel (RD)
conversion. Based on the assumptions, a growth surface area of
4875 ha will produce 730,000 ± 2000 kg d−1 algal biomass, yielding
1000 bbl d−1 algae oil. So as not to exceed the paddlewheel capabilities
individual ponds were sized at 0.81 ha each, requiring 6000 ponds for
production. The growth surface area has a depth of 30 cm resulting in a
total volume of 14.627 billion liters. By maintaining the culture density
at 0.5 g L−1 the ponds can contain 7.3 M kg-algae, of which only 10% of
the total raceway volume will be harvested daily. This allows the ponds
to maintain production and operate in a continuous steady state by
balancing the harvesting rate with the photosynthetic growth rate.
Wages were estimated to contribute 12% of the total operating costs.
This estimate was chosen based on similar analyses of the industry [6].
Maintenance costs were estimated as 3% of the process equipment and
raceway pond costs [27]. All equipment was assumed to operate for
24 h d−1 365 d yr−1. As a simplifying assumption, an average cost of
electricity of $0.11 kWh−1 was used to account for seasonal variations.
One of the main goals of the current study was to evaluate the poten-
tial scalability of algae facilities. The U.S. Energy Independence Security
Act of 2007 (EISA) has mandated 36 billion gallons (136B L) of renew-
able fuel by 2022 that will in turn be ramped up to 60 billion gallons
(227B L) of biofuel by 2030 with provisions to emphasize the develop-
ment of advanced, non-corn ethanol biofuels [28]. To evaluate the
scale up feasibility of algae production, we assumed that algae oil will
contribute a moderate portion of these mandates by producing 5 BGY
(18.9 BLY) of algae oil by 2022 with an increase to 10 BGY (37.8 BLY)
by 2030. The current model was designed with New Mexico as a possi-
ble site for algal production due to its climate (low seasonal variation
and high solar irradiance) and geography (flat topography). The current
study evaluated the capital and operating requirements associated with
algae-oil production of 1000 bbl d−1. Results from a single model pro-
duction plant were used to assess the scalability and key limitations of
algal biofuels from both economic and sustainability perspectives [25].
The process flow of baseline estimates for the current model is shown
in Fig. 2.1a.
78 J.N. Rogers et al. / Algal Research 4 (2014) 76–88

(1,438 MLD)

(21 MLD)
Recycle
Recycle
Total water Flocculant
recycle DAP Urea
(33,200 kg d-1)
(1,460 MLD) (16,300 kg d-1) (37,100 kg d-1)

New water Primary

(28 MLD) (386.5 MGD) Flocculant
CO2 absorber raceway ponds dewatering
add.
CO2 (static mixers) (paddlewheels) (lamella
Algae (static mixers)
(1.3M kg d-1) clarifiers)
0.5 g L-1
Evaporation Algae
Nutrient (25 MLD)
(24 MLD) 30 g L-1
recycle
Secondary
dewatering
Feed LEA
(centrifugation)
supplement (585,000 kg d-1)

(4 MLD) Algae
200 g L-1
Phase
Biomass- Cell
Green crude separation Lipid extraction
solvent disruption
(1000 bbl d-1) (Distillation (static mixer)
separator (sonication)
column)

New hexanes
Hexane recycle (17.5 kg hr-1)
(350,000 kg hr-1)

Fig. 2.1a. Single plant baseline operating flow diagram. Dashed lines indicate possible pathways for LEA. Additional processing such as anaerobic digestion would be necessary for nutrient
breakdown and the production of biogas. An alternative pathway would be to sell LEA as a nutritional supplement for livestock or aquaculture.

2.2. Economic, energy, and resource estimates
The plant capital and operating costs were estimated using industri-
al estimates and reports from similar processes. Three static mixers
would facilitate CO2 and nutrient addition to the ponds totaling about
$0.17 M capital investment (Westfall Manufacturing). Paddlewheel es-
timates were based on the requirements for a 0.81 ha raceway with a
channel 12.2 m across and 30 cm deep. The 6000 ponds in the current
model require a total of 24,000 paddlewheel units, and span over
4875 ha. Capital cost estimates for paddlewheels totaled a $120 M cap-
ital investment (Waterwheel Factory Inc.). The impacts of three energy
conditions were evaluated in the model. In the baseline scenario, the
paddlewheels were calculated to require 0.22 W m−2 (Appendix B.1)
and contribute $10.1 M of annual operating costs. Paddlewheel energy
scenario 2 requirements are 0.73 W m−2 based on power usage specs
from an industrial supplier (Waterwheel Factory Inc.), resulting in
annual operating costs of $34.5 M. In paddlewheel energy scenario 3,
assumptions from the current model are applied to pilot plant
paddlewheel energy measurements from the NMSU testbed to assess
scale up feasibility. Two pilot ponds, each with a growth surface area
of 32 m2, were operated by paddlewheels with individual motors.
Paddlewheel energy measurements were taken using a fluke meter
while circulating water in the ponds continuously 24 h d−1 to deter-
mine energy consumption under load. The total energy consumed by
the two paddle wheel motors was measured to be 8.16 W m−2. Scaling
up to the production capacity of that model would not be feasible for
commercial scale and would result in $383.1 M of annual operating
costs. Mixing energy inputs exceeded the theoretical growth mixing re-
quirements at the test scale and represented a significant discrepancy
between experimental ponds and commodity-scale ponds used for
algal cultivation. Further optimization is needed to determine minimum
mixing energy requirements and will assist in bridging the gap between
pilot- and commercial-scale operations.
The current model assumes a polymer flocculant cost of $100 per ton
of algae processed and contributes $26.7 M annually to the process (SNF
Polydyne). Two static mixers are required for flocculant addition totaling
$0.12 M (Westfall manufacturing). Estimates for two, 76.2 m diameter
lamella clarifiers, added a capital investment of $2.5 M based on a project
for the City of Detroit WWT, from Monroe Environmental [29]. The
5.96 kW rakes were assumed to run continuously for the operation of
each clarifier, costing $11,500 annually. The algae water stream leaving
the clarifiers was assumed to be 30 g L−1 [30]. Centrifuges were used
for additional dewatering of the algae water stream to 200 g L−1 [6].
The current model requires 12 centrifuges, totaling $6.6 M in capital in-
vestment, with each operating at 55 kW continuously and costing
$0.64 M annually (GEA Westfalia). The current model requires 13
sonicators for cell disruption, totaling $3.25 M. The sonicators operate
at 16 kW continuously and process up to 12 m3 h−1, costing $0.20 M
annually (Hielsher Ultrasonics). In the baseline scenario, extraction is
performed on the 20%-solid algae slurry using hexane at a cost of
$3000 per ton. A small static mixer is used to combine the solvent and
algae during lipid extraction costing $4500 (Westfall Manufacturing). A
solvent to algae-DW mass ratio of 10:1 was assumed with a 1 h recycle
time, totaling a 350 t requirement for extraction. Hexane was estimated
to contribute $1.05 M of initial capital investment. It was assumed that
there would be a daily solvent loss of 0.005%, contributing to an addition-
al $0.4 M of annual operating costs. In order to separate the LEA from the
solvent-crude mix the current model uses an oil-water separator with
3000 GPM capacity and residence time of 1 h (Hydro-Flo Technologies),
totaling a $0.25 M capital investment. The separator operates at 6 kW
continuously and contributes about $6000 of annual operating costs.
The present model uses a distillation column, $0.5 M capital investment
[31], with a 595 GPM (2252 L min−1) capacity for solvent recovery and
purification of the crude oil stream. Energy calculations (Appendix B.2)
assume continuous operation of the column to contribute an annual en-
ergy cost of $2.7 M. In an alternative scenario the economic and energy
impact of drying the algae slurry to 10%-water content is evaluated
(Appendix B.2).
The proposed liner is a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) liner [32].
A 40-mil HDPE liner was modeled to line 6000 ponds at a price of
$0.77 m−2, totaling $250 M [6]. The landscaping cost was estimated at
$0.16 m−2, contributing a total of $57 M [33]. Covering the raceways
cost an estimated $0.98 m−2, totaling $315 M [34], which included a
transparent PE cover and greenhouse structure. Additional infrastruc-
ture costs needed for the plant include railways, roads, buildings,
pipes, and construction. The current model assumes that railways and
roads will be necessary for the transport of raw materials and access
to the facility. The study estimates that a $1.85 M investment will pro-
vide 8.0 km of rail and 4.8 km of road for the facility [35,36]. Buildings
are estimated to contribute $0.45 M for a chemical storage warehouse,
a central operations facility, process buildings, and additional storage
[37]. Construction costs are estimated to contribute $2.5 M for the
 J.N. Rogers et al. / Algal Research 4 (2014) 76–88 79

facility, based on a similar study done on the profitability of soybean
biodiesel from Iowa State [37]. Sizing estimates for piping were made
using the volumetric flow rates throughout the process to maintain an
average flow velocity of ~2.5 m s−1. Estimates were simplified by as-
suming 188,000 ft of piping requirements at an average cost of
$11.43 m−1, totaling approximately $7 M [38,39].
Land was assumed to cost $3,707 ha−1 for property in New Mexico,
totaling approximately $18 M [40], and did not consider CO2 (flue gas)
or railway accessibility. Based on a resource assessment performed by
The Solar Energy Research Institute, the Tularosa Basin and Crow Flats
Basin are comprised of approximately 39,000 ha and a regional saline-
water availability of 750–1630 billion gallons (2839–6170 billion L) suit-
able for microalgal cultivation [41]. Although the current study operates
under the assumption of using fresh-water algae, it assessed the feasibility
of New Mexico for a theoretical strain of marine-algae with otherwise
identical characteristics to that used in the present model.
Several simplifying assumptions were applied to the availability of
water, which assumed to be accessible and that pumping was the only
associated cost. No permit fees, taxes, or transportation considerations
were applied to the baseline estimate for the cost of water. An average
of ground water level measurements in New Mexico taken by the
National Water Information System (NWIS) of 114 m (Table A.1) was
used to calculate the pumping energy requirements to fill and maintain
the raceway ponds. Using groundwater from this depth, filling the pond
to the total operating volume of 14.63 BL (3.864 BG) was found to cost
$2.9 M. Two scenarios of 6 m (baseline) and 12 m head were estimated
for the on-site pumping circulation requirements of the 1463 MLD
(386.5 MGD) processed, contributing annual operating costs of $5.7 M
and $11.5 M for the scenarios respectively (Appendix B.3). Industrial
turbine pumps were used as the basis for the capital cost estimates of
12.7 mg-P g−1-algae DW at an uptake efficiency of 50% [6], contribut-
ing $7.36 M of annual operating costs. In addition to DAP, the model
uses urea (46% N, $379 ton−1 [47]) as a nitrogen source at an uptake ef-
ficiency of 76% to meet the 91.9 mg-N g−1-algae DW [6], contributing
$24.43 M of annual operating costs (Table 2.2a).
3. Results
3.1. Results overview
The assumptions made for algal growth, dewatering, and extraction
efficiency allowed us to estimate the costs and energy usage for each
step of the process. The production goal of 1000 bbl-algae oil per day
in New Mexico was found to require 730,000 kg ± 2000 kg-algae d−1
(depending on inconsistencies in bioproduction) via a growth surface
area of 4875 ha. The plant also produces 585 tons of lipid extracted
algae (LEA) daily that can potentially be sold as a feed supplement or
used for anaerobic digestion and nutrient recycle. The estimated cost
of production that covers operating costs and a 10- or 20-year return
of capital investment resulted in a baseline cost of $4.10 L− 1
($15.52 gal−1) or $3.21 L−1 ($12.14 gal−1) of crude oil, respectively.
The operating cost of production was estimated to be $134 M annually.
Five operating factors – paddlewheels, nutrients, water, maintenance,
and harvesting – were identified for their major impact on either cost
or sustainability to the process. For the purpose of this study, the plant
was classified as sustainable if it could annually achieve its nameplate
capacity without any significant detriment to the surrounding
Table 2.2a
Key assumptions and model details.

the pumps throughout the plant, totaling $1.27 M of capital costs Algae strain Chlorella vulgaris
[42,43]. The current model estimates that approximately 1457 MLD Elemental composition of algae biomass C106H181O45N16P
(385 MGD) of water are recycled daily throughout the dewatering Average annual areal productivitya 15 g m−2 d−1
Biomass lipid content 25 wt.%
and back end processes. Despite the high percentage of process water
Daily oil production 1000 bbl d−1 (159,000 l d−1)
recovered, a daily loss of about 0.03% of the total plant water volume Density 920 kg m−3 (146,268 kg-oil d−1)
equates to 3.67 MLD (0.97 MGD) for the 4875 ha plant. Far more critical Extraction efficiency (base) 80%
however is the amount of water lost due to evaporation from the ponds. Required daily biomass (DW) 730,000 ± 1,500 kg d−1
Evaporation loss for the plant is 243.8 MLD (64.4 MGD, 0.5 cm d− 1) Dilution rate 10%
Total biomass in raceways 7.31 M kg
and 24.2 MLD (6.4 MGD, 0.05 cm d−1) for the two evaporation scenar- Required growth surface area for daily 4875 ha
ios. Groundwater pumping for replacing 247.6 MLD (0.5 cm d− 1 production
evaporation, 3.67 MLD process loss) and 28.0 MLD (0.05 cm d−1 evap- Growth surface area per pond 0.81 ha
oration, 3.67 MLD process loss) was found to have an annual cost of Number of ponds in plant 6000
Maximum culture density 0.5 g L−1
$18.3 M and $2.1 M respectively. The total annual water consumption
Raceway depth 30 cm
per plant, producing 57.9 million liters (15.3 million gallons) of Raceway volume 14.62 billion liters
crude-algae oil/yr, is estimated at 90.5 billion and 10.2 billion liters of CO2 recovery to culture 50%
water for the uncovered and covered raceway pond designs, respective- Nitrogen recovery to culture 76%
ly. The two scenarios were found to require from 176 L-water to P recovery to culture 50%
Net N demand 91.9 mg g−1-algae DW
1560 L-water per L-algae oil. Our wastewater treatment costs were es- Net P demand 12.7 mg g−1-algae DW
timated based on a facility of similar processing capacity totaling a Pond mixing baseb 0.22 W m−2
$245 M capital investment [44]. Only relevant WWT steps were consid- Pond mixing 2c 0.73 W m−2
ered due to lower process requirements. Pond mixing 3d 8.16 W m−2
Lamella separators 3.91 × 10−4 kWh kg−1-algae DW
Nutrient consumption was estimated using the Aspen Plus v7.3
Centrifuge power 2.17 × 10−2 kWh kg−1-algae DW
(Aspen Technology, Inc.) chemical process modeling software suite. Cell disruption 6.83 × 10−3 kWh kg−1-algae DW
The uptake was divided into photosynthesis and biosynthesis in order Biomass-separator 1.97 × 10−4 kWh kg−1-algae DW
to adhere to the program's capabilities. Photosynthesis was modeled Hexane recovery 4.68 × 10−1 kWh kg−1-oil
by combining CO2, water, and light to produce sugars and oxygen. Con- Groundwater depth 114.3 m (375 ft)
Pumping water from off-site 2.12 × 10−3 kWh L−1
version efficiency considered poor light penetration in ponds, inherent Evaporation (base) 0.05 cm d−1
photosynthetic loss, and cellular energy use; therefore, we chose a 4% On-site pumping circulation base 9.84 × 10−5 kWh L−1
overall conversion of solar energy [45] and a 50% conversion of CO2 to (6 m head)
meet the demand of 525.1 mg C g− 1-algae DW in order to simplify On-site pumping circulation 2 1.97 × 10−4 kWh L−1
(12 m head)
mass balances. Biosynthesis modeled the conversion of sugar, a nitrogen
source, and a phosphorus source into algal biomass (lipid, starch, a
The annual average areal productivity of 15 g m−2 d−1 in New Mexico s accounted
protein), water, and oxygen. The current model found an annual re- for by assuming 19 g m−2 d−1 peak algal biomass production in the spring and summer
months with 8 g m−2 d−1 during the fall and winter [46,48].
quirement of 0.280 million tons of CO2 at a cost $40 per ton [46], con- b
Calculated in Appendix B.1.
tributing $11.2 M of annual operating costs. Diammonium phosphate c
Based on power usage specs from an industrial supplier (Waterwheel Inc.).
(DAP, 18% N, 46% P, $499 ton−1 [47]) is used to meet the demand of d
Pilot plant paddlewheel energy measurements from NMSU testbed.
80 J.N. Rogers et al. / Algal Research 4 (2014) 76–88
environment. Additionally, capital investment was estimated to be ap-
proximately $1035 M. Five capital expenses; paddlewheels, wastewater
treatment equipment, land/landscaping, pond liners, and pond covers
were found to contribute over 95% of the total capital investment for
the plant. A comparison of the operating and capital costs is shown in
Figs. 3.1a and 3.1b respectively. Complete tables of the results (present-
ed in both $ L−1 and $ gal−1) can be found in the supplementary mate-
rial (Tables A.2, A.3).
3.2. Economic sensitivity analysis
Multiple scenarios were modeled for adjustments to the major oper-
ating and capital factors. The sensitivity analysis was performed for the
10- and 20-year return of capital investment scenarios and can be seen
in Figs. 3.2a and 3.2b, respectively. Tables A.4 and A.5 display the COP
sensitivity analysis results in terms of $ L−1 and $ gal−1 respectively.
The sensitivity analysis shows that the cost of production is the most
heavily influenced by the useable lipid content of the algae and the ex-
traction efficiency (EE) of lipids in the process. Changes to the algal
lipid content and EE directly impact productivity and do not affect the
scale of the growth infrastructure and only slightly impact the processing
requirements of the model. Therefore, as a simplifying assumption only
productivity was varied and all operating and capital costs were kept
constant for the sensitivity analysis of lipid content and EE. By increasing
the algal lipid content to 35% productivity would increase from the base-
line scenario (25% lipid content) of 57.9 MLY to 81.4 MLY and lower COP
by $1.17 L−1 (10-yr) and $0.92 L−1 (20-yr). Contrarily, decreasing the
algal lipid content to 15% lowers the production to 34.8 MLY and sub-
stantially increases COP by $2.73 L−1 (10-yr) and $2.14 L−1 (20-yr).
This range of oil contents (±10%) extended from our baseline of 25%
total lipids represents a single biological variable with the ability to sur-
pass DOE's 2014 target of reducing the “modeled mature plant cost of
algal open pond oil” [49]. Therefore, one priority of future research will
be to evaluate different approaches to increasing oil content, whether
by genetic intervention or controlled nutrient regimens, such as nitrogen
deprivation. Additionally, future research can increase productivity by
improving the average areal growth rate of the algal biomass used. A de-
crease in the growth rate to 10 g m−2 d−1 from the baseline scenario
(15 g m−2 d−1) would reduce the productivity to 38.6 MLY and sub-
stantially increase COP by $2.05 L−1 (10-yr) and $1.60 L−1 (20-yr).
Increasing the growth rate to 20 g m−2 d−1 would increase the produc-
tivity to 77.2 MLY and lower COP by $1.02 L−1 (10-yr) and $0.80 L−1
(20-yr). The three EE scenarios would result in either an increase to
72.7 MLY (100% EE) or decrease to 43.5 MLY (60% EE) production of
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
Millions
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
Fig. 3.1a. Baseline annual operating cost comparison. Operating cost of production was
estimated to be $134 M annually. Paddlewheels, nutrients, water, maintenance, and
harvesting were identified for their major impact on either cost or sustainability to the
process.
$350.00
$300.00
$250.00
Millions
$200.00
$150.00
$100.00
$50.00
$0.00
Fig. 3.1b. Baseline capital cost comparison. Capital investment was estimated to be approx-
imately $1035 M. Paddlewheels, wastewater treatment equipment, land/landscaping,
pond liners, and pond covers were found to contribute over 95% of the total capital invest-
ment for the plant.
algae crude. Increasing EE in the 10- and 20-yr capital return scenarios
lowers COP by $0.82 L−1 and $0.64 L−1 respectively. Lowering EE has
a more pronounced impact on the cost L−1; increasing the COP by
$1.37 L−1 (10-yr) and $1.07 L−1 (20-yr). The significant investment re-
quired for pond liners and covers result in a strong dependence to the
capital return scenarios. It can be seen that the impact on cost L−1 is re-
laxed significantly in the 20-yr capital return case. Whether or not the
pond uses a liner impacts the COP by ±$0.43 L−1 and ±$0.22 L−1 in
the 10-yr and 20-yr scenarios respectively. Whether or not to cover the
ponds also shows a reduced impact on COP in the 20-yr return scenario
at $0.27 L−1 as opposed to $0.54 L−1 in the 10-yr return case. The paddle
wheel energy requirements are independent of capital expense and are
therefore unchanged for the two capital return scenarios. Raising the
paddlewheel energy requirements from 0.22 W m−2 to 0.73 W m−2 re-
sulted in a $0.42 L−1 increase. The decrease in net harvesting efficiency
uses the simplifying assumption that all operating and capital costs re-
main the same and final production is decreased from 57.9 MLY
(100%) to 49.3 MLY (85%) of algae oil. The lower harvesting efficiency re-
sults in a $0.72 L−1 (10-yr return) and $0.57 L−1 (20-yr return) increase.
It can be seen clearly that flocculant costs constitute nearly all of the net
harvesting costs. The flocculant costs contribute ±$0.23 L−1 (both re-
turn scenarios) of the total impact, ±$0.24 L−1 (both return scenarios)
when adjusting total harvesting costs ±50%. The economic impact of N
and P recycling operated under a simplifying assumption that eliminated
the cost of DAP and urea addition, resulting in a $0.55 L−1 decrease. The
extraction costs only considered the solvent costs and the energy costs
required to run the extraction equipment. The extraction costs in the cur-
rent model assumed that the use of hexane at a 10:1 solvent to algae DW
ratio would achieve 80% extraction efficiency from 20%-solids algae [6]. It
can be seen that decreasing the baseline extraction costs by 50% resulted
in a COP decrease of $0.03 L−1 in both scenarios. There is not much infor-
mation available about extraction techniques being used at the commer-
cial scale. Conventional solvent extractions used in agricultural processes
require the biomass to have less than 10% water content [4]. Drying the
algae paste leaving the centrifuges (185.4 tons, 20%-solids) to 10%
water content requires 122 M kWh of energy annually, and causes COP
to increase by $0.23 L−1 (10- and 20-yr scenarios). The costs associated
with evaporation rate are based on the calculations performed for the
energy requirements of pumping replacement groundwater from a
depth of 114 m. Using the assumption that water levels and pumping
costs would remain constant, increasing the evaporation rate from
0.05 cm d−1 to 0.5 cm−1 had a $0.28 L−1 increase on COP. Increasing
the on-site pumping capacity for 1463 MLD (386.5 MGD) from a 6 m
to 12 m head resulted in a $0.10 L−1 increase on COP.
 J.N. Rogers et al. / Algal Research 4 (2014) 76–88 81

Lipid content (35% : 25% : 15 %)

Extraction efficiency (100% : 80% : 60%)

Areal productivity g/m2/d (20 : 15: 10)

Pond liner (no liner : liner : replace liner once)

Cover (no cover : cover : replace cover once)

Paddle wheels (0.22 W per m2 : 0.73 W per m2)

Net harvesting efficiency (100% : 85%)

Net Harvesting costs (50% : base : 150%)

Flocculant ($50 : $100 : $150 per ton-algae)

$ per ton CO2 ($20 : $40 : $60)

N+P recycle (100% : 0%)

Extraction costs (50% : base : Dry algae to 90% DW)

Evaporation rate (0.05 : 0.5 cm/day)

On-site pumping capacity (20 ft : 40 ft head)

-$1.50 -$1.00 -$0.50 $4..10 +$0.50 +1.00 +$1.50 +$2.00 +$2.50 +$3.00

Fig. 3.2a. Sensitivity analysis on COP (10-yr return of capital investment). Estimates are based on the baseline operating costs of $134 MM and annual capital payments of $104 MM to
cover a 10 year return of the $1.04 billion capital investment. The baseline COP was found to be $4.10 L−1 ($15.52 gal−1).

3.3. Energy sensitivity analysis
Maintaining a positive net energy balance is a major issue for biodie-
sel production. The amount of energy generated must be greater than
the amount of energy that is input to make it. The current model pro-
duces 53.4 M kg-algae oil yr− 1. Algal biodiesel has been reported to
have a higher heating value of 41 MJ kg−1 [50]. Under this assumption
we can estimate that the annual oil production as approximately
608.2 M kWh of energy. The energy return on investment (EROI)
must be above 1, otherwise the plant will consume more energy than
it generates and is inherently unsustainable. Alternative energy scenar-
ios were evaluated for the amount of replacement water required due to
evaporation, on-site pumping capacity, and paddlewheels. The major
energy requirements of the plant for both the baseline and alternative
scenarios can be seen in Fig. 3.3a.
The annual energy requirements show the energy dependence of
different processes throughout the model. The combined energy of all
plant processes must be less than the energy generated through oil pro-
duction. The baseline scenario shows that the most energy intensive
aspects of the plant (listed from high to low) are due to the
paddlewheels, on-site pumping circulation, solvent recovery, pumping
to fill the ponds, and pumping replacement water. The baseline scenario
results in an EROI of 2.73. The alternative energy graph shows the im-
pact for increases in the requirements for replacement water pumping
(147.2 M kWh annual energy increase), on-site pumping circulation
(52.3 M kWh annual energy increase), paddlewheels (221.6 M kWh
annual energy increase), and algae dewatering to 90%-solids
(122.3 M kWh annual energy increase). The current model found that
in the worst-case scenario, in which the energy increases from all of
the alternative scenarios were combined, the EROI dropped to 0.80.
This is an unsustainable scenario in which the plant consumes more en-
ergy than it produces and highlights the importance of minimizing en-
ergy inputs for commercial-scale algal cultivation.
4. Discussion
Scalable production capability is a critical element in analyzing the
viability of algae oil as a renewable fuel source. Algae may play a crucial

Lipid content (35% : 25% : 15 %)

Extraction efficiency (100% : 80% : 60%)

Areal productivity g/m2/d (20 : 15: 10)

Pond liner (no liner : liner : replace liner once)

Cover (no cover : cover : replace cover once)

Paddle wheels (0.22 W per m2 : 0.73 W per m2)

Net harvesting efficiency (100% : 85%)

Net Harvesting costs (50% : base : 150%)

Flocculant ($50 : $100 : $150 per ton-algae)

$ per ton CO2 ($20 : $40 : $60)

N+P recycle (100% : 0%)

Extraction costs (50% : base : Dry algae to 90% DW)

Evaporation rate (0.05 : 0.5 cm/day)

On-site pumping capacity (20 ft : 40 ft head)

-$1.50 -$1.00 -$0.50 $3..21 +$0.50 +1.00 +$1.50 +$2.00 +$2.50 +$3.00

Fig. 3.2b. Sensitivity analysis on COP (20-yr return of capital investment). Estimates are based on the baseline operating costs of $134 MM and annual capital payments of $52 MM to cover
a 20 year return of the $1.04 billion capital investment. The baseline COP was found to be $3.21 L−1 ($12.14 gal−1).
82 J.N. Rogers et al. / Algal Research 4 (2014) 76–88
35000
30000
Baseline
Alternative
25000
Million kWh
20000
15000
10000
5000
000
Fig. 3.3a. Annual plant energy comparison. Alternative energy scenarios for the amount of
replacement water required due to evaporation (28.0 MLD to 247.6 MLD), on-site
pumping capacity (20 ft to 40 ft head), paddlewheels (0.22 W m−2 to 0.73 W m−2),
and the additional dewatering of the algae to 90%-DW for extraction are compared with
the baseline energy values.
role in contributing to the EISA biofuels mandate of 36 billion gallons
(136B L) of renewable fuel by 2022 and 60 billion gallons (227B L) by
2030. In order for algae oil to make a significant contribution to the re-
newable fuel industry, we proposed 5 BGY (18.9B LY) of algae oil by
2022 with an increase to 10 BGY (37.8B LY) by 2030. New Mexico was
evaluated as a possible site for algal production to meet these demands.
The current model evaluated the COP impact of both 10-yr and 20-yr
capital investment return scenarios. The baseline algae oil COP was
found to be $4.10 L− 1 ($15.52 gal−1) (10-yr) and $3.21 L− 1
($12.14 gal−1) (20-yr). The COP results of this model fall in line with
the priorities set by the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable En-
ergy (EERE) for Bioenergy Technologies to reduce the cost of open pond
algal oil to $14.31 per gallon ($3.78 L−1) of gasoline equivalent by 2014
[49]. Although this model does not take conversion costs of the algae
crude to useable fuel, it identifies key areas that have the potential to re-
duce COP and help realize the EERE goals.
4.1. Paddlewheels
Paddlewheels are needed for the cultivation of algae, but their main
drawbacks come from their operating costs. The present model assumes
that the paddlewheels will maintain a mixing velocity of 30 cm s−1 for
the full 365 days with constant operation and an average productivity of
15 g d−1. Raceway ponds are inherently subject to varying intensities of
natural light throughout the course of the day. Absence of light during
the night is inevitable and could result in biomass losses as high as
25% [51]. Sufficient light penetration is variable in any algae cultivating
system, due to the density of the algae culture. Thus, there is an inherent
light attenuation regime in raceway ponds (i.e., algae cells near the
bottom of the ponds may be in the dark regime) [52]. Therefore,
ample mixing should be provided to minimize residence time in
the dark regime [53–55]. Alternatively, one method of reducing the op-
erating costs of the paddlewheels is to decrease the mixing velocity dur-
ing the night. Techniques such as operating the paddlewheels on a
variable schedule (e.g. run at 30 cm s−1 for 14 h, and then reduce it to
25 cm s−1 for 108 h) can be used to increase paddlewheel productivity
and efficiency [56]. Another method to reduce paddlewheel-operating
costs would be to cease operations during the winter. During the winter,
algae productivity decreases due to the low temperatures. This method
is an extreme case, when the operating costs far exceed the expected re-
turn [56].
In both operating cases (0.22 W m−2 and 0.73 W m− 2) the
paddlewheels represent a significant portion of the total annual
operating costs and result in an annual difference of 221.6 M kWh. In
the third scenario, the paddlewheel energy measurements for the
NMSU pilot pond totaled 8.16 W m−2 and require further optimization
to determine the minimum mixing energy requirements for experi-
mental growth. The uncertainty when scaling up production is clearly
shown by the difference between the theoretical and measured
paddlewheel energy requirements and indicates the need for the devel-
opment of alternative options. Other mixing devices, such as air lift
pumps, mixing boards, Archimedes screws, and mechanical pumps
have all been found to suffer from inflexibility in operation and high
capital costs despite relatively good efficiency [19]. Promising alterna-
tives may eliminate mechanical mixing by utilizing large-scale open-
ponds with sloped or corrugated designs [57,58].
4.2. Pond liners
The liner is one of the most expensive items for raceway ponds.
Liners enable a raceway pond to be built in otherwise unsuitable terrain.
Liners can be made from different materials such as clay, concrete, as-
phalt, fiberglass, and HDPE [59]. Although ponds can be located in
areas where clay is abundant and inexpensive, it can crack when the
ponds are dry and cause the ponds to lose essential nutrients and
water. Clay ponds cannot be cleaned like those utilizing a HDPE liner
and can lead to an increase in potential contamination [6,56]. Despite
being costly, liners may be necessary to help mitigate these problems.
In the current model, liners constitute a massive portion ($250 M,
24%) of the capital costs for the facility. Liners represent a crucial cost
prohibitive element in the use of raceway ponds for algal biomass pro-
duction and a recent demonstration plant construction by Sapphire
Energy in New Mexico without liners has indicated the viability of pro-
ceeding successfully in the cultivation of algae without.
4.3. Flocculant options
Harvesting single cells from liquid suspensions is energy intensive
and difficult when applied to continuous operation of large-scale
bioprocessing facilities [60]. Membrane filtration by size exclusion is a
simple and cost effective separation technique; however, even ad-
vanced filtration methods are subject to caking and erosion based on
the throughput of biomass needed for biofuel production, which can
lead to significant reductions in efficiency over the lifetime of the mem-
brane [61]. Low-speed centrifugation may be a more feasible alternative
for algae if a flocculant agent is used to increase the average particle size
of microalgae slurries from 10 μm to 10 mm by forming large masses of
many small particles to facilitate solid separation from a liquid media
[62]. The use of cationic polymers is a well-established method of floc-
culating particulate matter from large volumes of liquid as in wastewa-
ter treatment facilities or paper processing plants [63,64] Dissolved air
flotation and settling clarifiers have also been successfully implemented
to harvest flocculated algal biomass at demonstration scales. The algal
biomass harvesting process modeled in the present study relies on a
flocculation step followed by lamella clarifiers to bring the ~ 2 g L−1
algae suspension to a 30 g L− 1 slurry, followed by centrifugation of
this slurry to a 200 g L−1 paste.
Polyacrylamide (PA) flocculants are most widely used and can be ef-
fective with microalgal cells; however, if the biomass residues are to be
used as LEA for other co-products, PA may foul the biomass from a
health perspective. This process was designed using a flocculant dose
estimated at $100 per ton of DW algae harvested based on the operat-
ing parameters. While flocculant costs in excess of $100 per ton of
DW algae are prohibitive for biofuel production, a target of less than
$40 per ton may be an achievable production target with alternative
flocculant materials. Metal ion based flocculants have been deemed in-
compatible with end biofuel standards and pH-induced changes are
unfeasible for algal biofuel production at commercial scales; thus, bio-
logical approaches to flocculation have gained significant attention in
 J.N. Rogers et al. / Algal Research 4 (2014) 76–88
recent years. These processes can occur either as a natural “auto-
flocculation” mechanism in mature or nutrient deprived algae cul-
tures or instigated by a biological agent, such as the introduction
of another microorganism (algae, bacteria, cyanobacteria, predators
or grazers) [65–68] or a biomolecule with the bridging characteris-
tics similar to a polymer or adhesive qualities of a coagulant [69]. By
employing these methods, some estimates project that operating
costs can be reduced by $200–400 per million gallons of process
water treated by transitioning from chemical flocculants to
bioflocculation [70]. Furthermore, the production of biological floc-
culants is highly scalable and can be incorporated into the algae bio-
fuel production plant.
4.4. Extraction efficiency, lipid content, and areal growth rate
The extraction efficiency, algae lipid content, and areal growth rate
directly correlate to the overall productivity of the operation. The sensi-
tivity of these three factors was shown to have the highest economic
implications and represents a valuable opportunity for future research
to improve. It is crucial for the extraction process to be as efficient as
possible in order to minimize costs and maximize productivity. Some
dewatering is important to reduce processing volumes, however exten-
sive drying must be avoided and techniques for efficient extraction from
aqueous biomass (less than 20%-solids) must be optimized to avoid
costs and energy requirements. Because such a substantial portion of
COP is in the capital investment required for the growth infrastructure,
and increases to the algae lipid content from 25% to 35% or microbial
growth rate from 15 g m−2 d−1 to 20 g m−2 d−1 improve production
without a need for the development of additional growth area. As such,
there is a strong incentive to genetically engineering microalgae for aug-
mented areal growth and oil productivity [71], which can significantly
impact the cost of production, as evidenced by our sensitivity analysis.
There is an equally strong motivation to control the unintended release
of such genetically modified (GM) organisms into the natural environ-
ment; such scenarios for GM algae have been investigated recently
[72–75]. Additionally, the areal growth rate of microalgae has been
shown to be dependent on seasonal variations [48] averaged on an annual
basis for simplicity in this model. These seasonal variations create a differ-
ence between production and processing capacity, resulting in excess algal
production in peak months and excess in processing capacity in winter,
which must be considered when sizing future commercial scale develop-
ments. The current model assumes that all extracted material is useable
for conversion to fuel; however, high triglyceride content would be the
most suitable for fuel conversion via transesterification. Alternative tech-
niques such as hydrothermal processing or pyrolysis may allow for higher
yields via the conversion of the entire algal biomass into fuel, however no
such systems are currently being used at the industrial scale [76,77].
4.5. Lipid extracted algae
A potential benefit of the use of algae for biofuel production is the
potential value of the spent biomass as animal feed. The use of spent
biomass as a side product has significant contributions to the value of
algae biomass. Nutritional and toxicological evaluations have demon-
strated that algae biomass is suitable as a feed supplement or substitute
for conventional animal feed sources [78,79]. For LEA to be considered
for use as a feedstock the algae strain must have a composition suited
for both nutritional and fuel production purposes [80]. For example de-
spite the high nutritional value of Spirulina, it contains very low lipid
content and is not considered a viable feedstock for biofuel production
[81]. Although lipid extraction will remove beneficial fatty acids (such
as omega-3 PUFAs) and lower the overall nutritional value of the algae
biomass, the LEA may still be used as a high protein supplement.
The theoretical commercial scale algae facility in this study is esti-
mated to produce 585 tons d−1 of lipid-extracted algae. As mentioned
the quality of LEA as a protein supplement in animal and aquaculture
83
feed is still being researched, leading to an uncertainty in selling price
estimated to be from $250–$1000 ton−1 [82]. Each 1000 bbl d−1
facility could therefore potentially generate between $53.3 and
$213.5 million from the sale of LEA as a protein supplement.
4.6. Nutrient consumption
Nutrients represent an essential element of algae growth. The costs
and sustainability of which depend heavily on the nutrient source and
recyclability. As algae-oil technology continues to develop, it will be cru-
cial to supplement CO2, nitrogen, and phosphorus requirements by
recycling nutrients and co-locating algae farms with power plants and
wastewater [4]. Increased demand of limited resources and the exhaus-
tion of optimal growth locations are some of the difficulties associated
with scaling up production.
Carbon is the largest nutrient requirement and is fed into the autotro-
phic process in the form of CO2, in which 768 tons are required daily for
production in the plant. The production process examined in this study
requires roughly 0.28 million tons of CO2 annually. At the price of
$40 per ton, CO2 annually contributes $11.2 M of the annual operating
costs. The source of CO2 can have a significant impact on price and the
cost of production. CO2 sourced from an ethanol refinery may be provid-
ed for as low as $20 whereas CO2 sourced from flue gas or other industri-
al sources may range from $40–$60 [39]. Therefore, operating expenses
can be minimized co-locating commercial-scale algal biofuel develop-
ments with suitable CO2 sources. Scaling up to achieve the contribution
goals of 5 BGY and 10 BGY to the EISA biofuel mandates would require
92 million and 183 million tons of CO2, respectively. According to the
EPA, coal-fired power plants in the United States emitted 1.6B metric -
tons of CO2 in 2009 [83]. The 5 BGY and 10 BGY scale up contributions
would require 5.7% and 11.4% of all coal-fired power plant emissions in
the United States, respectively. Algae have fantastic potential to seques-
ter the emitted CO2 to be recycled into biofuel [84], however many of
the coal-fired plants are located in areas not suitable for algae-growth.
Additional work needs to be done at existing coal-fired plants to assess
the potential construction of algae-farms at their location. Efforts should
also be focused on building future coal-fired plants in areas that will also
be suitable for algae-oil production.
The present model relies on urea as a nitrogen source, which con-
tributes $24.43 million of the annual operating costs. Ammonia is an-
other optional nitrogen source that is similar in price and availability
to urea [6]. A single 1000 bbl d− 1 plant that produces 57.9 MLY
(15.3 MGY) of oil is estimated to require 64,459 tons of urea annually
for operation. Scaling up in attempts to contribute to the EISA biofuels
mandates would require 21.1 million and 42.2 million tons of urea an-
nually for the production of 5 BGY and 10 BGY of algae-oil, respectively.
Natural gas is the main input used to produce ammonia and with the
major increase in supply of natural gas over the past few years' nitrogen
supply is not currently an area of concern [85] and may lower the asso-
ciated operating costs. In this study, the phosphorus requirement is met
with 14,746 tons of DAP annually. The demand was found to be
12.7 mg-P/g-algae DW at an uptake efficiency of 50%. 40.4 tons d−1 of
DAP are used to meet the gross requirement 18.6 tons d−1 of phospho-
rus. In the current model, DAP annually contributes $7.36 million of the
annual operating costs. Scale up for the 5 and 10 BGY production sce-
narios would increase the demand to 4.82 and 9.64 million tons of
DAP, respectively. Phosphate rock is a non-renewable resource that
has taken 10–15 Ma to form. World population growth ensures the
need for phosphate fertilizer to grow crops for food and biofuels [86].
The largest deposits are found in northern Africa, China, the Middle
East, and the United States. Large resources have been identified on
the continental shelves and seamounts in the Atlantic Ocean and the Pa-
cific Ocean however they currently cannot be recovered economically
with the current technology. At the current rate of production, the phos-
phate reserves in the United States will be depleted in about 50 yr [87].
There are no substitutes for phosphorus in agriculture. This dependence
84 J.N. Rogers et al. / Algal Research 4 (2014) 76–88
will force the United States to rely on imported fertilizers to grow crops.
The growth of biofuels will only serve to expedite the depletion of
existing phosphorus reserves. From 2006 to 2012 the average value of
phosphate rock increased from $27.89 to $96.90 per ton [86,88].
While chemical processes can produce synthetic nitrogen fertilizers,
this process does not provide a sustainable outlook for algal biofuels
due to the fossil fuel demand of the Haber–Bosch process. It is critical
to algae biofuels to continue to consider growth conditions that utilize
recycled nitrogen and phosphorus sources.
Efforts must continue to identify methods that will lower the costs and
improve the sustainability associated with nutrient consumption. Inex-
pensive sources of CO2 such as from a flue gas provide an appealing option
for culture enrichment. Nutrient-rich wastewater can supplement or
eliminate the need for additional N and P and the recovery of these vital
elements through anaerobic digestion of algae biomass offers another im-
portant option to reclaim the fertilizer components used in algal biofuel
production [89,90]. This flue-gas and wastewater co-utilization (FWC)
strategy will not only lower costs of raw materials but also offset waste
products and contribute to the sustainability of microalgal biofuels [91].
Despite the benefits of FWC, the maximum potential of algae production
from FWC may still only make a moderate impact on United States petro-
leum dependence for transportation fuels. A GIS based national assess-
ment considering the relative abundance of the input resources and
proximity for the economic and biofuel production potential of FWC
found that less than 200 MGY (757 MLY) could be produced annually
[92]. Additional strategies for increasing biofuel production must include
nutrient recycling and the utilization of nutrients from livestock waste
[93].
4.7. Land and water requirements: covered vs. uncovered raceways
Algal production is heavily dependent on large volumes of water for
production. The costs and energy associated with replenishing lost water
to the process were found to be highly dependent on evaporative losses
and groundwater levels. This section assesses the sustainability and pro-
ductivity of scaling-up an algal-facility as it pertains to water availability.
Despite the reductions in COP for uncovered raceways, the water
requirements pose serious sustainability issues when scaling up produc-
tion. For equivalent water availability of a plant using covered raceways
can support 4.2 times the production capacity as a plant operating with
the uncovered design. While evaporative loss of culture volume can seri-
ously affect production due to water availability in arid regions, evapora-
tive cooling plays an important and necessary role in maintaining
appropriate pond temperature [6]. Water loss in the range of 0.3–
0.6 cm d−1 [6] is not uncommon and accounts for a significant hurdle
to sustainable algal biofuel production [25]. Thus, a balance must be
struck between the natural discharge of heat by evaporation and the rec-
lamation of this valuable water that is lost in the process [94,95]. Addi-
tional research must account for seasonal variations to optimize growth
conditions without jeopardizing plant sustainability due to evaporative
losses [96].
As a preliminary metric, it was desired to evaluate freshwater re-
quirements of the current model and scale up compared to the total
freshwater consumption in both New Mexico and the United States as
a whole. The 2005 New Mexico Water Report found that 4.88 trillion -
liters (1.29 trillion gallons) of freshwater are consumed every year
[97]. The state's freshwater is extremely limited, of which 77.86% is
used agriculturally. Due to limited supply, both fresh and slightly saline
waters are now used for domestic, industrial, and agricultural purposes.
Water rights holders are also unlikely to support the demands of an
increase in algal production [41]. In 2005, the United States freshwater
consumption totaled 482.3 trillion liters (127.4 trillion gallons) annual-
ly [98]. Assuming sufficient land for production, it is evident
that the freshwater required to build facilities in New Mexico
rapidly matches and surpasses all other freshwater consumption in the
state. The 5 BGY goal is completely unattainable in New Mexico alone
as it requires 168% and 704% of all of the freshwater consumed in the
state for the covered and uncovered raceway scenarios, respectively.
The impact on the total freshwater consumed in the United States is
also evident as algae production is increased to 10 BGY, foreshadowing
potential water versus fuel debate by reaching levels equivalent to 14%
of all current U.S. freshwater consumption. The scale up effects of this
algae facility pertaining to total freshwater consumption in New
Mexico [97] and the United States [98] can be seen in Table A.6.
In 1990, of the estimated 2.467 × 1013 m3 of groundwater reserves
in New Mexico, 1.85 × 1013 m3 were characterized as moderately saline,
very saline, or brine. Only Tularosa Basin and Crows Flats were deemed
suitable for large-scale microalgal cultivation based on the selection
criteria established by the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI)
(water quality, land slope, and climatic conditions) [41]. The selected re-
gions were found to contain about 2.84–6.17 × 109 m3 of available sa-
line water with just over 39,000 ha of suitable land [41,99]. Studies
have been performed to determine the salinity tolerance of algae for bio-
fuel production as utilizing saline water can help to curb egregious fresh-
water requirements [41,99]. Maintaining all previous assumptions for a
marine algal species, the land available would allow for the
construction of eight 1000 bbl d−1 facilities at 4875 ha each, requiring
from 229–870 billion liters of water annually for the covered and uncov-
ered raceway designs, respectively. The facilities in the current model
would therefore be able to produce an estimated 463.3 million liters
(122.4 million gallons) of oil annually based on the 1990 SERI resource as-
sessment. More current resource assessments have indicated that addition-
al saline or “brackish” water resources may be available to facilitate
additional development algal biofuels in New Mexico, however favor loca-
tions situated around the Gulf Coast, the eastern seaboard, and areas adja-
cent to the Great Lakes to meet water requirements [6].
The low seasonal variation, high solar irradiance, and flat topography
in New Mexico make it a valuable location for the development of algal
biofuels, however groundwater depletion in New Mexico is already a se-
rious issue and increased withdrawals could further aggravate freshwa-
ter scarcity in the state. Therefore, algal biofuel development efforts in
the state must use algal strains with the ability to utilize saline or “brack-
ish” water. Scaling algal biofuel production in New Mexico must focus on
reducing water losses and maximizing available resources. From an envi-
ronmental engineering perspective, the water reduction and sustainabil-
ity gained by using covered raceways most likely outweighs the increase
in cost of production. Covering the raceway ponds will also help to mit-
igate contamination and environmental damage however it must be de-
signed to facilitate cooling and allow for optimal growth.
5. Conclusions
The current study evaluates sustainability and economic require-
ments of a 1000 bbl d−1 algal biofuel facility based in New Mexico.
Several concerns arose during the development of this model; however,
alternatives and solutions exist and must continue to be developed in
order to realize the full potential of algal biofuels. Current technology
and production techniques limit the scalability of algal biofuel produc-
tion. Energy, water, CO2, and nutrient requirements in particular
represent significant obstacles to the sustainability of algal biodiesel
at the industrial scale. A critical analysis of the available resources
in New Mexico has shown that these challenges of water, CO2,
and nutrient sourcing at large-scale production must be carefully
considered. Development must focus on reducing water losses
and maximizing available saline and “brackish” water resources.
Multiple pathways are available for producing fuels from algae and addi-
tional research needs to be done to develop the most economic and sus-
tainable solutions. Both brackish water tolerant freshwater and marine
algae strains must be cultivated using various water sources to identify
the strains ideally suited for production under a variety of conditions.
Several options are available to mitigate the sustainability challenges
that were identified by the present model. Flue-gas and wastewater
 J.N. Rogers et al. / Algal Research 4 (2014) 76–88 85

utilization will help to supplement some of the nutrient demands Appendix A. Tables
of algal growth. Integration with livestock production will provide
nutrients to the system that can be used for algal production; however,
Table A.1
locating these facilities in close proximity also depends on the available New Mexico groundwater depth measurements.
land and resources. The systems that are the most ideal for integration
New Mexico groundwater depth measurements [104]
with algal production (flue gas sources, WWT, etc.) already exist
for the large part. Therefore, they must be evaluated for the feasibility National water information system
of incorporating algae growth into their facilities [91]. Future develop- Site number Depth ft
312323108293302 265
ment of algal biofuels will be best served if new sources of unconven-
312503108332801 400
tional nutrients are developed in conjunction with algal growth in an 312705108304801 520
integrated biorefinery model [20,93]. Additionally, despite the potential 312722108350401 250
economic impact of utilizing LEA as an animal feed supplement, nutri- 312804108332301 300
312951108295101 392
ent sustainability concerns may necessitate the use of LEA for nutrient
320104103120301 500
recycle. Average 375 ft = 114 m
Freshwater availability represents a serious issue to algal biofuel
production without robust water reclamation methods and evaporative
loss minimization. Utilizing saline or brackish water will be necessary to
sustainably grow algae in New Mexico [95]. Depleting ground water Table A.2
depth levels will increase the pumping energy requirements to fill and Baseline operating cost results for a single plant. Comparison of annual costs and
contribution to COP in $ gal−1 and $ L−1. Annual production: 58.03 MLY (15.33 MGY).
maintain the ponds. Efforts must focus on reducing evaporative losses,
recovering water during processing, and maximizing available saline Baseline operating costs
and “brackish” water resources. $MM yr−1 Cost $ gal−1 Cost $ L−1
The disparity between the theoretical and measured paddlewheel
Paddlewheels $10.07 $0.66 $0.17
energy use reflects the uncertainty in scale-up and demonstrates the Lamella separator $0.01 $0.00 $0.00
importance of minimizing energy requirements. Paddlewheel-driven Centrifuge $0.64 $0.04 $0.01
raceway ponds have historically been the method of choice for Cell disruption $0.20 $0.01 $0.00
algae cultivation due to their presumed low-cost compared to more Biomass-separator $0.01 $0.00 $0.00
Hexanes recovery $2.75 $0.18 $0.05
sophisticated photobioreactor designs. However, raceway ponds are On-site pumping circulation $5.76 $0.38 $0.10
severely limited by their operating efficiencies and physical aspect ra- DAP $7.36 $0.48 $0.13
tios to promote maximal algal biomass productivity. While these Urea $24.43 $1.59 $0.42
ponds can accomplish the objective of tertiary wastewater treatment Pumping replacement water $2.07 $0.13 $0.04
Replacement hexane $0.40 $0.03 $0.01
with microalgae at small scales, the capital costs, operating costs,
Absorber CO2 $11.21 $0.73 $0.19
and energy requirements of paddlewheels at large scales indicate the Flocculant $26.70 $1.74 $0.46
need for alternative bioreactor designs for algal biofuel production Wastewater treatment $1.10 $0.07 $0.02
[100–102]. Maintenance $28.55 $1.86 $0.49
Algae growth and harvesting costs dominate the economic invest- Wages $13.05 $0.85 $0.22
Total operating $134.30 $8.76 $2.31
ment in facility scale-up. The amount of growth area required for pro-
duction correlates directly to the largest capital expenditures. A pond
liner is a necessity for the majority of geographic locations suitable for
algae growth and a partial cover will reduce evaporative loss while Table A.3
allowing necessary cooling to occur. Cultivating strains with a more Baseline capital cost results for a single plant. Total investment and cost contribution to
rapid growth rates and augmented total lipid contents have the highest COP in $ gal−1 and $ L−1 for 10-yr and 20-yr capital return scenarios. Annual production:
potential to decrease COP as these biological parameters increase pro- 58.03 MLY (15.33 MGY).
ductivity without imposing additional capital investment to the growth Baseline capital costs
infrastructure [103].
$MM 10 yr 10 yr 20 yr 20 yr
Collectively, the modeled data pertaining to energy, nutrient, and $ gal−1 $ L−1 $ gal−1 $ L−1
water requirements for expansive deployment of microalgal biofuel
CO2 absorber (static mixer) $0.17 $0.001 $0.000 $0.001 $0.000
production in New Mexico pose certain challenges but are likely to be Paddlewheels $120.00 $0.783 $0.207 $0.391 $0.103
addressable with technological advances in algae cultivation methods. Flocculant addition (static mixer) $0.11 $0.001 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000
The continued development of mitigation strategies for each of these Lamella separators $2.50 $0.016 $0.004 $0.008 $0.002
concerns will build a foundation to withstand the inevitable and neces- Centrifuges $6.60 $0.043 $0.011 $0.022 $0.006
Cell disruption (sonicators) $3.25 $0.021 $0.006 $0.011 $0.003
sary scrutiny for emerging energy technologies, such as algal biofuels.
Lipid extraction (static mixer) $0.00 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000
Ongoing research in this active area of renewables will need to refine Biomass-solvent separator $0.25 $0.002 $0.000 $0.001 $0.000
algae production systems in order to gain both public acceptance and Distillation column $0.50 $0.003 $0.001 $0.002 $0.000
secure the economic viability of biofuels. Pumps $1.27 $0.008 $0.002 $0.004 $0.001
Operating water $2.96 $0.019 $0.005 $0.010 $0.003
Hexane $1.05 $0.007 $0.002 $0.003 $0.001
Wastewater treatment equipment $245.00 $1.598 $0.422 $0.799 $0.211
Acknowledgements Land $18.00 $0.117 $0.031 $0.059 $0.016
Liners $250.00 $1.631 $0.431 $0.815 $0.215
This work was supported, in part, by funds from the U.S. Department Landscaping $57.00 $0.372 $0.098 $0.186 $0.049
Cover $315.00 $2.055 $0.543 $1.027 $0.271
of Energy’s National Energy Technologies Laboratory through grant
Railways $1.25 $0.008 $0.002 $0.004 $0.001
number DE-OE0000098 to New Mexico State University. Partial support Roads $0.60 $0.004 $0.001 $0.002 $0.001
was also provided by a fellowship to JNR from the Johns Hopkins Envi- Operating buildings $0.45 $0.003 $0.001 $0.001 $0.000
ronment, Energy, Sustainability & Health Institute (E²SHI). We appreci- Construction costs $2.50 $0.016 $0.004 $0.008 $0.002
ate the constructive input from Dr. Scott Williams and his generous help Pipes $7.08 $0.046 $0.012 $0.023 $0.006
Total capital $1035.55 $6.76 $1.78 $3.38 $0.89
reviewing this manuscript.
86 J.N. Rogers et al. / Algal Research 4 (2014) 76–88

Table A.4 Appendix B. Calculations

Cost of production sensitivity analysis ($ per liter). Estimates are based on the baseline
operating costs of $134 MM and annual capital payments of $52 MM to cover a 20 year
return of the $1.04 billion capital investment.
B.1. Energy requirements for raceway ponds [56]

Cost of production sensitivity analysis ($ per liter) The head loss in bends is calculated by,
10 yr baseline COP 20 yr baseline COP
$4.10 L−1 $3.21 L−1
 
2
K v
COP COP COP COP hb ¼ ðB:1:1Þ
decrease increase decrease increase 2g

Lipid content (35%: 25%: 15%) −$1.17 $2.73 −$0.92 $2.14

Extraction efficiency (100%: 80%: 60%) −$0.82 $1.37 −$0.64 $1.07 in which K is the kinetic loss coefficient for 180° bends
Areal productivity g/m2/d (20: 15: 10) −$1.02 $2.05 −$0.80 $1.60 (theoretically = 2), v is the velocity of the raceway (0.3 m s−1), and
Pond liner −$0.43 $0.43 −$0.22 $0.22 g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m s−2). Resulting in
(no liner: liner: replace liner once)
hb = 0.01834.
Cover −$0.54 $0.54 −$0.27 $0.27
(no cover: cover: replace cover once)
The friction loss across the length of the raceway is calculated using
Paddle wheels – $0.42 – $0.42 Manning's Equation,
(0.22 W m-2: 0.73 W m-2)
Net harvesting efficiency (100%: 85%) – $0.72 – $0.57  
2 2 L
Net harvesting costs (50%: base: 150%) −$0.24 $0.24 −$0.24 $0.24 hc ¼ v  n  ðB:1:2Þ
R =3
4
Flocculant ($50: $100: $150 ton-algae−1) −$0.23 $0.23 −$0.23 $0.23
$ ton−1 pure CO2 ($20: $40: $60) −$0.10 $0.29 −$0.10 $0.29
N + P recycle (100%: 0%) −$0.55 – −$0.55 – in which n is the roughness factor (0.015 for polyethylene), R is the
Extraction costs −$0.03 $0.23 −$0.03 $0.23
channel hydraulic radius (2112), and L is the channel length (643.9).
(50%: base: dry algae to 90% DW)
Evaporation rate (base 0.05: 0.5 cm d−1) – $0.28 – $0.28 Resulting in hc = 0.46635.
On-site pumping capacity – $0.10 – $0.10 The energy requirement per pond is calculated by,
(base 20 ft: 40 ft head)
 
Q wh
W ¼ 9:8  ðB:1:3Þ
Table A.5
e
Cost of production sensitivity analysis ($ per gallon). Estimates are based on the baseline
operating costs of $134 M and annual payments of $104 M to cover a 10 year return of in which Q is the volumetric flow rate (1.1 m3 s−1), w is the unit mass of
the $1.04 billion capital investment.
water (998 kg m3), h is the total head loss (htotal = 0.64984), e is the
Cost of production sensitivity analysis ($ per gallon) paddle wheel and drive system efficiency (40% assumed), and 9.8 is
10 yr baseline COP 20 yr baseline COP the conversion factor in W-s kg-m−1. The energy calculations resulted
$15.52 gal−1 $12.14 gal−1 in 1741.5 W pond− 1 (0.22 W m− 2) or 10,448.8 kW for the whole
COP COP COP COP
plant. When operated continuously the total paddlewheel energy use
decrease increase decrease increase totals 91.531 M kWh annually.
Lipid content (35%: 25%: 15%) −$4.43 $10.34 −$3.47 $8.09
Extraction efficiency (100%: 80%: 60%) −$3.10 $5.17 −$2.43 $4.05 B.2. Energy required for solvent recovery and drying algae to 10% water
Areal productivity g/m2/d (20: 15: 10) −$3.88 $7.76 −$3.03 $6.07 content
Pond liner (no liner: liner: replace liner once) −$1.63 $1.63 −$0.82 $0.82
Cover −$2.05 $2.05 −$1.03 $1.03
(no cover: cover: replace cover once) cp  w  ðT b −20Þ
Paddle wheels – $1.59 – $1.59
E¼ ðB:2:1Þ
3600
(0.22 W m-2: 0.73 W m-2)
Net harvesting efficiency (100%: 85%) – $2.74 – $2.14
Net harvesting costs (50%: base: 150%) −$0.92 $0.92 −$0.91 $0.91 For solvent recovery: E is the energy in kWh, cp is the specific heat
Flocculant ($50: $100: $150 ton-algae−1) −$0.87 $0.87 −$0.87 $0.87
of hexane (2.26 KJ kg − 1 °C − 1 [105]), w is the number of kg of
$ ton−1 pure CO2 ($20: $40: $60) −$0.37 $1.10 −$0.37 $1.10
N + P recycle (100%: 0%) −$2.07 – −$2.07 – hexane entering the column every hour (92,696 kg hr− 1), Tb is the
Extraction costs −$0.11 $0.88 −$0.11 $0.88 boiling point of hexane (69.0 °C [106]), 20 is the starting tempera-
(50%: base: dry algae to 90% DW) ture of the hexane, and 3600 is a conversion factor from KJ to kWh.
Evaporation rate (0.05: 0.5 cm d−1) – $1.06 – $1.06 Under continuous operation the column will require 25.0 M kWh
On-site pumping capacity (20 ft: 40 ft head) – $0.38 – $0.38
annually.
For drying algae to 10% water content: E is the energy in kWh, cp is
Table A.6 the specific heat of water (4.18 KJ kg− 1 °C− 1), w is the number of kg
Scale up assessment of algae freshwater requirements. Compares the water requirements of water entering the dryer every hour (150,290 kg hr− 1), Tb is the
when scaling the model for two evaporation conditions to the total freshwater boiling point of water (100.0 °C), 20 is the starting temperature
consumption in New Mexico and the United States.
of the water, and 3600 is a conversion factor from KJ to kWh.
Scale up assessment of algae freshwater requirements Under continuous operation the column will require 122.3 M kWh
New Mexico annual freshwater consumption (BGY): 1287.2 annually.
United States annual freshwater consumption (BGY): 127,385.0
1 Plant (15.3 MGY production) Water consumption (BGY) % of NM % of US B.3. Energy required for pumping groundwater and on-site circulation
Covered (0.05 cm d−1 evaporation) 6.57 0.5% 0.005%
[107]
Uncovered (0.5 cm d−1 evaporation) 27.73 2.2% 0.022%
327 Plants (5 BGY production)
Covered (0.05 cm d−1 evaporation) 2160 167.7% 1.7%
E ¼φW h ðB:3:1Þ
Uncovered (0.5 cm d−1 evaporation) 9060 703.7% 7.1%
654 Plants (10 BGY production)
Covered (0.05 cm d−1 evaporation) 4320 335.3% 3.4% in which E represents the total energy in Watt hours, W is the pumping
Uncovered (0.5 cm d−1 evaporation) 18,120 1407.4% 14.2%
out W cubic meters of groundwater (or on-site circulation), h is the
 J.N. Rogers et al. / Algal Research 4 (2014) 76–88
average groundwater depth (or m of head), and φ is a coefficient de-
fined by:
γρg
φ¼ ðB:3:2Þ
1000
in which γ is the pumping efficiency (0.5), ρ is the density of water
(1000 kg m− 3), and g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m s−2).
The current model assumes a groundwater depth of 114 m and two
conditions for replacement water of 28,000 m3 (0.05 cm d−1 evapora-
tion) and 247,450 m3 (0.5 cm d−1 evaporation). The two replacement
conditions require 18.8 M kWh yr−1 and 165.9 M kWh yr−1 respec-
tively. On-site pumping circulates 1.46 M m3 d−1 for the two scenarios
of 6 m and 12 m head. The two pumping capacities are calculated to re-
quire 52.3 M kWh yr−1 and 104.6 M kWh yr−1 respectively.
Appendix C. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.11.007.
References
[1] J. Chamie, et al., World Population to 2300, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Population Division, ST/ESA/SER.A/236, United Nations, New York, NY,
2004.
[2] Annual Energy Outlook, U.S. Energy Information Administration, DOE/EIA-
0383(2012) June 25, 20122012. (www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo).
[3] A. Richmond, Handbook of Microalgal Culture: Biotechnology and Applied Phycol-
ogy, Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.
[4] J. Sheehan, et al., A Look Back at the US Department of Energy's Aquatic Species
Program: Biodiesel from Algae. TP-580-24190, National Renewable Energy Labora-
tory, Golden, CO, 1998.
[5] E.D. Frank, et al., “Life-Cycle Analysis of Algal Lipid Fuels with the GREET Model.”
ANL/ESD/11-5, Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, 2011.
[6] R. Davis, D. Fishman, E.D. Frank, M.S. Wigmosta, et al., Renewable Diesel from
Algal Lipids: An Integrated Baseline for Cost, Emissions, and Resource Potential
from a Harmonized Model, Argonne National Laboratory, Technical Report:
ANL/ESD/12-4, NREL/TP-5100-55431, PNNL-214372012. (www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy12osti/55431.pdf).
[7] John S. Burlew, Algal culture, From Laboratory to Pilot Plant, Carnegie Inst.
WashingtonPubl 600, 1953. 1.
[8] W.J. Oswald, C.G. Golueke, Biological transformation of solar energy, Adv. Appl.
Microbiol. 11 (1960) 223–242.
[9] R.E. Lee, Phycology, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1980.
[10] Dragoljub Bilanovic, et al., Freshwater and marine microalgae sequestering of
CO2 at different C and N concentrations—Response surface methodology analysis,
Energy Convers. Manag. 50 (2) (2009) 262–267.
[11] Sheng-Yi Chiu, et al., Lipid accumulation and CO2 utilization of Nanochloropsis
oculata in response to CO2 aeration, Bioresour. Technol. 100 (2) (2009) 833–838.
[12] Bei Wang, et al., CO2 bio-mitigation using microalgae, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.
79 (5) (2008) 707–718.
[13] A.C. Redfield, On the proportions of organic derivatives in sea water and their rela-
tion to the composition of plankton, in: R.J. Daniel (Ed.), James Johnstone Memorial
Volume, University Press of Liverpool, 1934, pp. 177–192.
[14] A.C. Redfield, The biological control of chemical factors in the environment, Am.
Sci. 46 (1958) 205–221.
[15] Adam C. Martiny, et al., Strong latitudinal patterns in the elemental ratios of ma-
rine plankton and organic matter, Nat. Geosci. 6 (4) (2013) 279–283.
[16] David T. Welsh, et al., Denitrification, nitrogen fixation, community primary pro-
ductivity and inorganic-N and oxygen fluxes in an intertidal Zostera noltii meadow,
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 208 (2000) 65–77.
[17] José Moreno, et al., Outdoor cultivation of a nitrogen-fixing marine cyanobacteri-
um, Anabaena sp. ATCC 33047, Biomol. Eng. 20 (4) (2003) 191–197.
[18] Tom Berman, Sara Chava, Algal growth on organic compounds as nitrogen sources,
J. Plankton Res. 21 (8) (1999) 1423–1437.
[19] John R. Benemann, William J. Oswald, Systems and economic analysis of
microalgae ponds for conversion of CO2 to biomass, Final Report. No. DOE/
PC/93204–T5, California Univ, Berkeley, CA (United States), 1996, (Dept. of Civil
Engineering).
[20] Rupert Craggs, Donna Sutherland, Helena Campbell, Hectare-scale demonstration
of high rate algal ponds for enhanced wastewater treatment and biofuel produc-
tion, J. Appl. Phycol. 24 (3) (2012) 329–337.
[21] Venkatesh Vasudevan, et al., Environmental performance of algal biofuel technol-
ogy options, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (4) (2012) 2451–2459.
[22] M. Jensen, A.H. Andersen, Biofuels: a contested response to climate change,
Sustainability Sci. Pract. Policy 9 (1) (2013) 42–56.
87
[23] B.J.L.B. Williams, L.M.L. Laurens, Microalgae as biodiesel & biomass feedstocks: re-
view & analysis of the biochemistry, energetics & economics, Energy Environ. Sci. 3
(2010) 554–590.
[24] M.E. Huntley, D.G. Redalje, CO2 mitigation and renewable oil from photosynthetic
microbes: a new appraisal, Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 12 (4) (2007)
573–608.
[25] NationalResearch Council, Sustainable Development of Algal Biofuels, National
Academies Press, 2012, ISBN 978-0-309-26032-9. (Available at: http://www.nap.
edu/catalog.php?record_id=13437).
[26] A. Kendall, J. Yuan, Comparing life cycle assessments of different biofuel options,
Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. (2013).
[27] Maintenance Estimate, Retrieved December 13, 2012 from http://www.
reliableplant.com/Read/7050/cost-replacement-value.
[28] EISA, Mandates Renewable Fuel Standard, Retrieved April 10th, 2013 from http://
www.epa.gov/otag/fuels/renewablefuels/.
[29] Monroe Environmental, Retrieved December 13, 2012 from http://www.
monroeenvironmental.com/PDF/ME_Circular_Clarifiers.pdf.
[30] WEF, Clarifier Design, WEF Manual of Practice No. FD-8, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill,
2005.
[31] Max S. Peters, et al., Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, 5th ed.
McGraw-Hill, 2002. 793.
[32] Henri P. Sangam, R. Kerry Rowe, Effects of exposure conditions on the depletion of
antioxidants from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembranes, Can.
Geotech. J. 39 (6) (2002) 1221–1230.
[33] EPA, East Helena Capital Costs for Lands to be Developed, Retrieved December 13,
2012 from http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/mt/easthelena/03_CostTables.
pdf.
[34] J.N. Rosenberg, A. Mathias, K. Korth, M.J. Betenbaugh, G.A. Oyler, Microalgal bio-
mass production and CO2 sequestration from an integrated ethanol biorefinery
in Iowa: a technical appraisal and economic feasibility evaluation, Biomass
Bioenergy 35 (2011) 3865–3876.
[35] Mike Good, Railroad Construction Cost Estimates, Henry Country Library, 2008.
(Retrieved December 13, 2012 from, http://tacnet.missouri.org/history/railroads/
rrcosts.html).
[36] Generic Cost Per Mile Models, Retrieved December 13, 2012 from http://
citizensforsouthernillinois.org/?page_id=722012.
[37] Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. “Biodiesel Profitability”. Unpub-
lished result retrieved December 13, 2012 from, http://www.extension.iastate.
edu/agdm/energy/xls/d1-15biodieselprofitability.xlsx.
[38] Harrison Machine & Plastic Co., Retrieved December 13, 2012 from http://www.
harrisonplastic.com/aboutpvc.html.
[39] Mueller Industries, Wholesale Pipe Price Lists, Retrieved December 13, 2013 from
http://www.muellerindustries.com/catalogs/wholesale-price-lists.
[40] Lands of New Mexico, Retrieved May 5, 2013 from http://www.landsofnewmexico.
com/new_mexico/index.cfm2013.
[41] R. Lansford, J. Hernandez, P.J. Enis, D. Truby, C. Mapel, Evaluation of available saline
water resources in New Mexico for the production of microalgae, Report, Solar
Energy Research Institute, Golden, Colorado, SERI/TP 232-3597, 1990, (83 pp.).
[42] All Cost Data, Turbine Pumps, Cast Iron, Retrieved December 13, 2013 from http://
www.allcostdata.info/browse.html/152901000.
[43] Pentair Co., Propeller Pumps, Retrieved December 13, 2013 from http://www.
fairbanksnijhuis.com/EngineeredProduct_N_Propeller.aspx.
[44] Oakland County Water and Wastewater Masterplan, Alternative Analysis, vol. 4,
Sept 2007, (URS Project No. 13647263).
[45] Robert E. Blankenship, et al., Comparing photosynthetic and photovoltaic ef-
ficiencies and recognizing the potential for improvement, Science (2011)
805–809(332.6031).
[46] A. Sun, R. Davis, M. Starbuck, A. Ben-Amotz, R. Pate, P.T. Pienkos, Comparative cost
analysis of algal oil production for biofuels, Energy 36 (8) (2011) 5169–5179.
[47] Index Mundi, DAP Fertilizer vs Urea, Retrieved December 13, 2012 from http://
www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=dap-
fertilizer&commodity=urea.
[48] Craig Behnke, Sapphire Energy, Inc., Development of Value-Added Products
from Residual Algae Biomass, DOE EERE Biomass Peer Review (May 20-23, 2013,
Alexandria, VA), Slide 7, May 20–23, 2013, Accessed September 11, 2013. Available
from: https://www2.eere.energy.gov/biomass/peer_review2013/Portal/.
[49] Office of EERE, Bioenergy Technologies At-a-Glance, Retrieved May 23, 2013 from
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/bo_budget_fy14.html.
[50] Pascal Schlagermann, et al., Composition of Algal Oil and Its Potential as Biofuel,
J. Combust. (2012)(Article ID 285185) (http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jc/
2012/285185/abs/).
[51] Yusuf Chisti, Biodiesel from microalgae, Biotechnol. Adv. 25 (3) (2007)
294–306.
[52] Maria J. Barbosa, et al., Optimization of biomass, vitamins, and carotenoid yield on
light energy in a flat-panel reactor using the A-stat technique, Biotechnol. Bioeng.
89 (2) (2005) 233–242.
[53] Otto Pulz, Karl Scheibenbogen, Photobioreactors: design and performance with re-
spect to light energy input, Bioprocess and Algae Reactor Technology, Apoptosis,
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1998. 123–152.
[54] Jeffrey M. Gordon, Juergen E.W. Polle, Ultrahigh bioproductivity from algae, Appl.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 76 (5) (2007) 969–975.
[55] M. Janssen, P. Slenders, J. Tramper, L.R. Mur, R.H. Wijffels, Photosynthetic efficiency
of Dunaliella tertiolecta under short light/dark cycles, Enzyme Microb. Technol. 29
(4–5) (2001) 298–305.
[56] T.J. Lundquist, et al., A Realistic Technology and Engineering Assessment of Algae
Biofuel Production, Energy Biosciences Institute, 2010. 1.
88 J.N. Rogers et al. / Algal Research 4 (2014) 76–88
[57] DARPA, Defense Sciences Office. Biofuels, Retrieved April 30, 2013 from http://
www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/DSO/Programs/Biofuels.aspx.
[58] Rupert J. Craggs, Paul J. McAuley, Valerie J. Smith, Wastewater nutrient removal by
marine microalgae grown on a corrugated raceway, Water Res. 31 (7) (1997)
1701–1707.
[59] Ami Ben-Amotz, Large scale open algae ponds, Technical report, The National Insti-
tute of Oceanograpy, Israel, 2008.
[60] S. Hellwig, J. Drossard, R.M. Twyman, R. Fischer, Plant cell cultures for the produc-
tion of recombinant proteins, Nat. Biotechnol. 22 (2004) 1415–1422.
[61] N.R. Mann, R.S. Herbst, J.R. Hess, V. Kochergin, Enhanced flux, erosion resistant
membranes for biomass separations—Part II, Membr. Technol. 2004 (2004) 5–9.
[62] A. Schlesinger, D. Eisenstadt, A. Bar-Gil, H. Carmely, S. Einbinder, J. Gressel, Inex-
pensive non-toxic flocculation of microalgae contradicts theories; overcoming a
major hurdle to bulk algal production, Biotechnol. Adv. 30 (2012) 1023–1030.
[63] B. Ghernaouta, D. Ghernaoutb, A. Saibabpages, Algae and cyanotoxins removal by
coagulation/flocculation: a review, Desalin. Water Treat. 20 (2010) 133–143.
[64] N.B. Wyatt, L.M. Gloe, P.V. Brady, J.C. Hewson, A.M. Grillet, M.G. Hankins, P.I. Pohl,
Critical conditions for ferric chloride-induced flocculation of freshwater algae,
Biotechnol. Bioeng. 109 (2) (2012) 493–501.
[65] G. Gutzeit, D. Lorch, A. Weber, M. Engels, U. Neis, Bioflocculent algal-bacterial biomass
improves low-cost wastewater treatment, Water Sci. Technol. 52 (12) (2005) 9–18.
[66] S. Salim, R. Bosma, M.H. Vermuë, R.H. Wijffels, Harvesting of microalgae by
bio-flocculation, J. Appl. Phycol. 23 (5) (2010) 849–855.
[67] S. Salim, M.H. Vermuë, R.H. Wijffels, Ratio between autoflocculating and target
microalgae affects the energy-efficient harvesting by bio-flocculation, Bioresour.
Technol. 118 (2012) 49–55.
[68] Method and System for Efficient Harvesting of Microalgae and Cyanobacteria,
WIPO Patent No. 2011040955, 8 Apr. 2011.
[69] G.A. Oyler, J.N. Rosenberg, D.P. Weeks, Single Chain Antibodies for Photosynthetic
Microorganisms and Method of Use, US 2012/032662, 2012.
[70] T.J. Lundquist, D. Hammond, F.B. Green, W.J. Oswald, Tertiary Pilot Study Report,
Recycled Wastewater Facilities Plan, Oswald Engineering Associates, Inc., City of
St. Helena, California, 2004. 70.
[71] J.N. Rosenberg, G.A. Oyler, L. Wilkinson, M.J. Betenbaugh, A green light for
engineered algae: redirecting metabolism to fuel a biotechnology revolution,
Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 19 (2008) 430–436.
[72] K.J. Flynn, A. Mitra, H.C. Greenwell, J. Sui, Monster potential meets potential monster:
pros and cons of deploying genetically modified microalgae for biofuels production, J.
R. Soc. Interface 3.1 (2013)(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/issues/222341/).
[73] K.J. Flynn, H.C. Greenwell, R.W. Lovitt, R.J. Shields, Selection for fitness at the indi-
vidual or population levels: modeling effects of genetic modifications in
microalgae on productivity and environmental safety, J. Theor. Biol. 263 (3)
(2010) 269–280.
[74] J. Gressel, C.J.B. van der Vlugt, H.E.N. Bergmans, Environmental risks of large
scale cultivation of microalgae: mitigation of spills, Algal Res. 2 (2013)
286–298.
[75] W.J. Henley, R.W. Litaker, L. Novoveská, C.S. Duke, H.D. Quemada, R.T. Sayre, Initial
risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) microalgae for commodity-scale bio-
fuel cultivation, Algal Res. 2 (1) (2013) 66–77.
[76] P.E. Savage, R.B. Levine, C.M. Huessman, Hydrothermal processing of biomass, Ther-
mochemical conversion of biomass to liquid fuels and chemicals2010. 192–221.
[77] Xiaoling Miao, Wu. Qingyu, Changyan Yang, Fast pyrolysis of microalgae to pro-
duce renewable fuels, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 71 (2) (2004) 855–863.
[78] V.K. Dhargalkar, X.N. Verlecar, Southern Ocean seaweeds: a resource for explora-
tion in food and drugs, Aquaculture 287 (2009) 229–242.
[79] Susan M. Renaud, et al., Effect of temperature on growth, chemical composition
and fatty acid composition of tropical Australian microalgae grown in batch cul-
tures, Aquaculture 211 (1) (2002) 195–214.
[80] M.R. Brown, et al., The vitamin content of microalgae used in aquaculture, J. Appl.
Phycol. 11 (3) (1999) 247–255.
[81] Jasvinder Singh, Gu. Sai, Commercialization potential of microalgae for biofuels
production, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14 (9) (2010) 2596–2610.
[82] Jose A. Olivares, Challenges and opportunities in algal biodiesel development,
No. LA-UR-11-00834; LA-UR-11-834, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), 2011.
[83] EPA, CO2 Emissions Estimates, Retrieved April 26th, 2013 from http://www.epa.
gov/greenpower/pubs/calcmeth.htm.
[84] K.L. Kadam, Power plant flue gas as a source of CO2 for Microalgae cultivation: eco-
nomic impact of different process options, Energy Convers. Manag. 38 (1997)
505–510(Suppl.).
[85] W. Huang, Impact of Rising Natural Gas Prices on U.S. Ammonia Supply, USDA
WRS-0702August 2007.
[86] U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2013.
[87] S.M. Jasinski, Phosphate Rock, Statistics and Information, US Geological Survey,
2006.
[88] U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2006.
[89] P. Bohutskyi, E. Bouwer, Biogas production from algae and cyanobacteria through
anaerobic digestion: a review, analysis, and research needs, Adv. Biofuels Bioprod.
(2013) 873–975.
[90] S. Aslan, I.K. Kapdan, Batch kinetics of nitrogen and phosphorus removal from syn-
thetic wastewater by algae, Ecol. Eng. 28 (1) (2006) 64–70.
[91] Shaikh A. Razzak, et al., Integrated CO2 capture, wastewater treatment and biofuel
production by microalgae culturing—a review, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 27 (2013)
622–653.
[92] Nolan Orfield, Greg Keoleian, Nancy Love, A GIS based national assessment of algal
biofuel production potential through flue-gas and wastewater coutilization, 6th In-
ternational Conference of the International Society for Industrial Ecology (ISIE)
Proceedings. Berkeley, CA, June 7–10 2011, Abstract #591, 2011.
[93] Keri B. Cantrell, et al., Livestock waste-to-bioenergy generation opportunities,
Bioresour. Technol. 99 (17) (2008) 7941–7953.
[94] E.R. Venteris, R. Skaggs, A.M. Coleman, M.S. Wigmosta, A GIS cost model to as-
sess the availability of freshwater, seawater, and saline groundwater for algal
biofuel production in the United States, Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (9) (2013)
4840–4849.
[95] Yuan-Kun Lee, Microalgal mass culture systems and methods: their limitation and
potential, J. Appl. Phycol. 13 (4) (2001) 307–315.
[96] Peter Waller, et al., The algae raceway integrated design for optimal temperature
management, Biomass Bioenergy 46 (2012) 702–709.
[97] John Longworth, New Mexico water use by categories 2005, New Mexico Office of
the state Engineer Technical Report 52, 2005, (http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/
Publications/Library/TechnicalReports/TechReport-052.pdf).
[98] J.F. Kenny, N.L. Barber, S.S. Hutson, K.S. Linsey, J.K. Lovelace, M.A. Maupin, Estimat-
ed Use of Water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular, 2009.
1344 (52 pp.).
[99] R. Lansford, J. Hernandez, P.J. Enis, Evaluation of available saline water resources in
New Mexico for the production of microalgae, FY 1986 Aquatic Species Program
Annual Report, Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden, Colorado, 1987,
pp. 227–248, (SERI/SP-231–3071).
[100] B. Ketheesan, N. Nirmalakhandan, Feasibility of microalgal cultivation in a
pilot-scale airlift-driven raceway reactor, Bioresour. Technol. 108 (2012) 196–202.
[101] L.B. Christenson, R.C. Sims, Rotating algal biofilm reactor and spool harvester for
wastewater treatment with biofuels by-products, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 109 (2012)
1674–1684.
[102] A. Ozkana, K. Kinneya, L. Katza, H. Berberoglub, Reduction of water and energy re-
quirement of algae cultivation using an algae biofilm photobioreactor, Bioresour.
Technol. 114 (2012) 542–548.
[103] H.C. Greenwell, L.M.L. Laurens, R.J. Shields, R.W. Lovitt, K.J. Flynn, Placing
microalgae on the biofuels priority list: a review of the technological challenges,
J. R. Soc. Interface 7 (2010) 703–726.
[104] USGS, NWIS Groundwater Levels for New Mexico, Retrieved April 23, 2013 from
http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nm/nwis/gwlevels.
[105] The Engineering Toolbox, Retrieved May 10, 2013 from http://www.
engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-fluids-d_151.html2013.
[106] OSHA, Hexane Boiling Point, Retrieved May 10, 2013 from https://www.osha.gov/
SLTC/healthguidelines/n-hexane/recognition.html2013.
[107] Tingju Zhu, Claudia Ringler, Ximing Cai, Energy Price and Groundwater Extraction
for Agriculture: Exploring the Energy–Water–Food Nexus at the Global and Basin
Levels, International Conference of Linkages Between Energy and Water Manage-
ment for Agriculture in Developing Countries, Hyderabad, India, 2007.