Present and Future Economic and Environmental Impacts of Microalgal Technology 325
A common conclusion in microalgal biofuels LCAs is the need for full utilization of coproducts
in the biorefinery concept. In many cases, these coproducts represent animal feed opportunities. If the
environmental and economic burden of microalgal production is shared between biofuels and feed
products, the economic and environmental balance would, of course, tend to be more positive. The
biofuels industry based on land plants has already produced large quantities of feed ingredients in use
throughout the world (Makkar 2012). Microalgal biofuels are also expected to generate large quantities of
“spent” biomass rich in proteins and minerals and other bioactive compounds (Ravishankar et al. 2012).
When considering the production of feeds independently, we have already made the arguments, above,
that microalgae can reduce the water and nutrient footprint of feed production assuming water is recycled
and nutrients are supplemented with waste water streams. It can also replace feed ingredients which are
slowly being reduced (such as wild caught fish) with unpredictable ecological implications.
Essentially, microalgal technology can replace fuels and feeds with (when using the proper technology
sets) lower economic and environmental impact. So, why is the scale of microalgal technology so small,
as was pointed out earlier in the chapter? Several studies (Davis et al. 2011; Haruna et al. 2011; Amer
et al. 2011, Chapter 14 in this volume are just examples) have pointed out that biofuels production
form microalgae is not yet economically feasible and several technological breakthroughs will need to
occur before cost parity with fossil fuels is achieved. A similar situation exists with feed replacements.
Microalgal production is still too expensive (Table 1). However, we are optimistic that the cost differential
between microalgal feedstocks and agricultural and fossil feedstocks will narrow as new microalgae
strains are developed, new processes are established, larger scale microalgae culture is achieved, and the
full cost (economic and environmental) of microalgae, agricultural, and fossil feedstocks is considered.
As these developments occur, we expect to realize the promise of microalgal products with a smaller
environmental footprint than those available today. Our review suggests that based on price and scale
considerations (e.g., Fig. 8), microalgal-based feed replacements will likely find commercial viability
sooner than microalga-based fuels.
Acknowledgements
Much of the work presented here has been possible thanks to the efforts of many different scientists at
Synthetic Genomics. We are grateful to Dr. Gerardo Toledo for sharing unpublished data and Dr. James
Flatt, Dr. Teresa Spehar, and Mr. Charlie Witherspoon for reviewing an earlier version of the manuscript.
Special thanks to Dr. Claudia Grewe for reviewing the manuscript.
References
Abdulqader, G., L. Barsanti and M.R. Tredici. 2000. Harvest of Arthrospira platensis from Lake Kossorom (Chad) and its
household usage among the Kanembu. J. Appl. Phycol. 12: 493–498.
Ahsan, M., B. Habib, M. Parvin, T.C. Huntington and M.R. Hasan. 2008. A review on culture, production and use of Spirulina
as foods for humans and feeds for domestic animals and fish. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1034. FAO,
Rome. 33 pp.
Ajjawi, I., J. Verruto, M. Aqui, L.B. Soriaga, J. Coppersmith, K. Kwok, L. Peach, E. Orchard, R. Kalb, W. Xu, T.J. Carlson,
K. Francis, K. Konigsfeld, J. Bartalis, A. Schultz, W. Lambert, A.S. Schwartz, R. Brown and E.R. Moellering. 2017.
Lipid production in Nannochloropsis gaditana is doubled by decreasing expression of a single transcriptional regulator.
Nature Biotechnol. 35: 647–652.
Amer, L., B. Adhikari and J. Pellegrino. 2011. Technoeconomic analysis of five microalgae-to-biofuels processes of varying
complexity. Bioresour. Technol. 102: 9350–9359.
Batan, L., J. Quinn, B. Wilson and T. Bradley. 2010. Net energy and greenhouse emission evaluation of biodiesel derived
from microalgae. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44: 7975–7980.
Becker, E. 2007. Micro-algae as a source of protein. Biotechnol. Adv. 25: 207–210.
Beckmann, J., F. Lehr, G. Finazzi, B. Hankamer, C. Posten, L. Wobbe and O. Kruse. 2009. Improvement of light to biomass
conversion by de-regulation of light-harvesting protein translation in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. J. Biotechnol.
142: 70–77.
Benemann, J. 1989. The future of microalgal biotechnology. pp. 317–337. In: R.C. Creswell, T.A.V. Rees and N. Shah (eds.).
Algal and Cyanobacterial Biotechnology. Longman, London.
Benemann, J. 2010. Microalgae Aquafeeds. 4th Algae Biomass Summit, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Breithaupt, H. 2004. GM plants for your health. EMBO Reports 5: 1031–1034.
A common conclusion in microalgal biofuels LCAs is the need for full utilization of coproducts
in the biorefinery concept. In many cases, these coproducts represent animal feed opportunities. If the
environmental and economic burden of microalgal production is shared between biofuels and feed
products, the economic and environmental balance would, of course, tend to be more positive. The
biofuels industry based on land plants has already produced large quantities of feed ingredients in use
throughout the world (Makkar 2012). Microalgal biofuels are also expected to generate large quantities of
“spent” biomass rich in proteins and minerals and other bioactive compounds (Ravishankar et al. 2012).
When considering the production of feeds independently, we have already made the arguments, above,
that microalgae can reduce the water and nutrient footprint of feed production assuming water is recycled
and nutrients are supplemented with waste water streams. It can also replace feed ingredients which are
slowly being reduced (such as wild caught fish) with unpredictable ecological implications.
Essentially, microalgal technology can replace fuels and feeds with (when using the proper technology
sets) lower economic and environmental impact. So, why is the scale of microalgal technology so small,
as was pointed out earlier in the chapter? Several studies (Davis et al. 2011; Haruna et al. 2011; Amer
et al. 2011, Chapter 14 in this volume are just examples) have pointed out that biofuels production
form microalgae is not yet economically feasible and several technological breakthroughs will need to
occur before cost parity with fossil fuels is achieved. A similar situation exists with feed replacements.
Microalgal production is still too expensive (Table 1). However, we are optimistic that the cost differential
between microalgal feedstocks and agricultural and fossil feedstocks will narrow as new microalgae
strains are developed, new processes are established, larger scale microalgae culture is achieved, and the
full cost (economic and environmental) of microalgae, agricultural, and fossil feedstocks is considered.
As these developments occur, we expect to realize the promise of microalgal products with a smaller
environmental footprint than those available today. Our review suggests that based on price and scale
considerations (e.g., Fig. 8), microalgal-based feed replacements will likely find commercial viability
sooner than microalga-based fuels.
Acknowledgements
Much of the work presented here has been possible thanks to the efforts of many different scientists at
Synthetic Genomics. We are grateful to Dr. Gerardo Toledo for sharing unpublished data and Dr. James
Flatt, Dr. Teresa Spehar, and Mr. Charlie Witherspoon for reviewing an earlier version of the manuscript.
Special thanks to Dr. Claudia Grewe for reviewing the manuscript.
References
Abdulqader, G., L. Barsanti and M.R. Tredici. 2000. Harvest of Arthrospira platensis from Lake Kossorom (Chad) and its
household usage among the Kanembu. J. Appl. Phycol. 12: 493–498.
Ahsan, M., B. Habib, M. Parvin, T.C. Huntington and M.R. Hasan. 2008. A review on culture, production and use of Spirulina
as foods for humans and feeds for domestic animals and fish. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1034. FAO,
Rome. 33 pp.
Ajjawi, I., J. Verruto, M. Aqui, L.B. Soriaga, J. Coppersmith, K. Kwok, L. Peach, E. Orchard, R. Kalb, W. Xu, T.J. Carlson,
K. Francis, K. Konigsfeld, J. Bartalis, A. Schultz, W. Lambert, A.S. Schwartz, R. Brown and E.R. Moellering. 2017.
Lipid production in Nannochloropsis gaditana is doubled by decreasing expression of a single transcriptional regulator.
Nature Biotechnol. 35: 647–652.
Amer, L., B. Adhikari and J. Pellegrino. 2011. Technoeconomic analysis of five microalgae-to-biofuels processes of varying
complexity. Bioresour. Technol. 102: 9350–9359.
Batan, L., J. Quinn, B. Wilson and T. Bradley. 2010. Net energy and greenhouse emission evaluation of biodiesel derived
from microalgae. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44: 7975–7980.
Becker, E. 2007. Micro-algae as a source of protein. Biotechnol. Adv. 25: 207–210.
Beckmann, J., F. Lehr, G. Finazzi, B. Hankamer, C. Posten, L. Wobbe and O. Kruse. 2009. Improvement of light to biomass
conversion by de-regulation of light-harvesting protein translation in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. J. Biotechnol.
142: 70–77.
Benemann, J. 1989. The future of microalgal biotechnology. pp. 317–337. In: R.C. Creswell, T.A.V. Rees and N. Shah (eds.).
Algal and Cyanobacterial Biotechnology. Longman, London.
Benemann, J. 2010. Microalgae Aquafeeds. 4th Algae Biomass Summit, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Breithaupt, H. 2004. GM plants for your health. EMBO Reports 5: 1031–1034.