4.8 Article

Development of life cycle water footprints for the production of fuels and chemicals from algae biomass

Journal

WATER RESEARCH
Volume 140, Issue -, Pages 311-322

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.04.046

Keywords

Algae; Thermochemical conversion; Water footprint; Ponds; Photobioreactor; Life cycle assessment

Funding

  1. Alberta Innovates (Bio Division) [AIBIO ABI-14-004]
  2. Emissions Reduction Alberta [CCEMC CRDPJ 452968]
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [NSERC CRDPJ 452968]
  4. Symbiotic EnviroTek Inc [RES0019956]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study develops life cycle water footprints for the production of fuels and chemicals via thermo-chemical conversion of algae biomass. This study is based on two methods of feedstock production - ponds and photobioreactors (PBRs) - and four conversion pathways - fast pyrolysis, hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL), conventional gasification, and hydrothermal gasification (HTG). The results show the high fresh water requirement for algae production and the necessity to recycle harvested water or use alternative water sources. To produce 1 kg of algae through ponds, 1564 L of water are required. When PBRs are used, only 372 L water are required; however, the energy requirements for PBRs are about 30 times higher than for ponds. From a final product perspective, the pathway based on the gasification of algae biomass was the thermochemical conversion method that required the highest amount of water per MJ produced (mainly due to its low hydrogen yield), followed by fast pyrolysis and HTL. On the other hand, HTG has the lowest water footprint, mainly because the large amount of electricity generated as part of the process compensates for the electricity used by the system. Performance in all pathways can be improved through recycling channels. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available