Green Fuel Tech of Massachusetts (USA), have commenced a USD 92 million
project alliance in 2007. It is expected that in the conceivable future, this project
targets an increase of nearly 100 ha of algae greenhouses, which will yield 25,000 t
of algal biomass annually (Bahadar and Khan 2013).
Although the technical feasibility of microalgae has already been proven
experimentally, the microalgae-based biofuels are yet not suitable for large-scale
commercial applications, even after several decades of development. The major
hindrance to this end is the relatively enhanced production cost. In order to realize a
10% return rate, investigations reveal that the essential selling costs of the product
per gallon of triglyceride (TAG) should be USD 18.10 for PBR and USD 8.52 for
open pond manufacturing. The biodiesel production costs per gallon of diesel via
hydro-treating soared to USD 9.84 and USD 20.53, while the manufacturing price
per gallon for petroleum diesel was USD 2.60, clearly indicating the increases
expenses associated with the former (Davis et al. 2011). US DOE reported that algal
biofuels can be competitive with petroleum at approximately USD 2.38/gal (DOE
2010). It is thus obvious, that in order to seek solutions for downregulating the
increased production costs, the R&D sector is dedicated to carry out frequent and
elaborate analyses of economic practicalities of microalgae-based biofuel.
Techno-economic assessment (TEA) is one of the most basic and common
methods applied to evaluate the feasibility of microalgae-based biofuel. TEA
methods are often associated with process modeling. In 2011, Ryan Davis modeled
a microalgal setup producing raw oil in the annual capacity of 10 MM gal via the
Aspen Plus software, to study the cost of each process unit of fuel production. The
firm inferred that the microalgal biofuel production finances would be far from
being reasonable with conventional fossil fuels, in case it corresponded to construct
a large-scale manufacturing setup (Davis et al. 2011). Amer et al. (2011) have
reported, by comparing five microalgae to biofuels processes using the SAFEER
model, that the open pond scenarios which produced either TAG or free fatty acid
methyl esters, appeared to be closest to the USD 1/kg price reference, and consequently, are the most viable choices (Amer et al. 2011). In another work, Zamalloa
et al. (2011) considered the anaerobic digestion of microalgae and utilized a process
model and diverse indicators to conduct the analysis of uncomplicated biomethanation potential. The results highlighted the efficacy of treating electrical and heat
energies equally through a feed-in price of €0.133/kWh, making the project
lucrative. This stands in poor contrast to the carbon credit of €30/ton CO 2 (eq), with
a meagre 4% revenue returns (Zamalloa et al. 2011). Batan et al. (2016) employed a
dynamic accounting model of a bounded photobioreactor microalgal facility with a
manufacturing capacity of 37.85 million liters (10 million gallons) of biofuel per
annum. The authors showed that the total manufacturing costs of algal raw oil and
diesel per liter matched to USD 3.46 and USD 3.69, correspondingly. The financial
feasibility of biofuels manufactured from microalgae relies on the entree to
coproduct arcades with more incremental benefits (Batan et al. 2016). The aforementioned studies ignored the impacts of either policies or byproducts. It may be
noted that the absence of these two factors could influence the accuracy of the
7 The Bioeconomy of Microalgal Biofuels
159
project alliance in 2007. It is expected that in the conceivable future, this project
targets an increase of nearly 100 ha of algae greenhouses, which will yield 25,000 t
of algal biomass annually (Bahadar and Khan 2013).
Although the technical feasibility of microalgae has already been proven
experimentally, the microalgae-based biofuels are yet not suitable for large-scale
commercial applications, even after several decades of development. The major
hindrance to this end is the relatively enhanced production cost. In order to realize a
10% return rate, investigations reveal that the essential selling costs of the product
per gallon of triglyceride (TAG) should be USD 18.10 for PBR and USD 8.52 for
open pond manufacturing. The biodiesel production costs per gallon of diesel via
hydro-treating soared to USD 9.84 and USD 20.53, while the manufacturing price
per gallon for petroleum diesel was USD 2.60, clearly indicating the increases
expenses associated with the former (Davis et al. 2011). US DOE reported that algal
biofuels can be competitive with petroleum at approximately USD 2.38/gal (DOE
2010). It is thus obvious, that in order to seek solutions for downregulating the
increased production costs, the R&D sector is dedicated to carry out frequent and
elaborate analyses of economic practicalities of microalgae-based biofuel.
Techno-economic assessment (TEA) is one of the most basic and common
methods applied to evaluate the feasibility of microalgae-based biofuel. TEA
methods are often associated with process modeling. In 2011, Ryan Davis modeled
a microalgal setup producing raw oil in the annual capacity of 10 MM gal via the
Aspen Plus software, to study the cost of each process unit of fuel production. The
firm inferred that the microalgal biofuel production finances would be far from
being reasonable with conventional fossil fuels, in case it corresponded to construct
a large-scale manufacturing setup (Davis et al. 2011). Amer et al. (2011) have
reported, by comparing five microalgae to biofuels processes using the SAFEER
model, that the open pond scenarios which produced either TAG or free fatty acid
methyl esters, appeared to be closest to the USD 1/kg price reference, and consequently, are the most viable choices (Amer et al. 2011). In another work, Zamalloa
et al. (2011) considered the anaerobic digestion of microalgae and utilized a process
model and diverse indicators to conduct the analysis of uncomplicated biomethanation potential. The results highlighted the efficacy of treating electrical and heat
energies equally through a feed-in price of €0.133/kWh, making the project
lucrative. This stands in poor contrast to the carbon credit of €30/ton CO 2 (eq), with
a meagre 4% revenue returns (Zamalloa et al. 2011). Batan et al. (2016) employed a
dynamic accounting model of a bounded photobioreactor microalgal facility with a
manufacturing capacity of 37.85 million liters (10 million gallons) of biofuel per
annum. The authors showed that the total manufacturing costs of algal raw oil and
diesel per liter matched to USD 3.46 and USD 3.69, correspondingly. The financial
feasibility of biofuels manufactured from microalgae relies on the entree to
coproduct arcades with more incremental benefits (Batan et al. 2016). The aforementioned studies ignored the impacts of either policies or byproducts. It may be
noted that the absence of these two factors could influence the accuracy of the
7 The Bioeconomy of Microalgal Biofuels
159