Cited by 90Algal biology and biofuel productionMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and BioproductionBiofuel production and bioconversion

Techno-economic assessment for the production of algal fuels and value-added products: opportunities for high-protein microalgae conversion

Open access
Wiatrowski, Matthew, Klein, Bruno C., Davis, Ryan W., Quiroz-Arita, Carlos, Tan, Eric C. D., Hunt, Ryan W., Davis, Ryan E.·2022·Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Microalgae possess numerous advantages for use as a feedstock in producing renewable fuels and products, with techno-economic analysis (TEA) frequently used to highlight the economic potential and technical challenges of utilizing this biomass in a biorefinery context. However, many historical TEA studies have focused on the conversion of biomass with elevated levels of carbohydrates and lipids and lower levels of protein, incurring substantial burdens on the ability to achieve high cultivation productivity rates relative to nutrient-replete, high-protein biomass. Given a strong dependence of algal biomass production costs on cultivation productivity, further TEA assessment is needed to understand the economic potential for utilizing potentially lower-cost but lower-quality, high-protein microalgae for biorefinery conversion. Results: In this work, we conduct rigorous TEA modeling to assess the economic viability of two conceptual technology pathways for processing proteinaceous algae into a suite of fuels and products. One approach, termed mild oxidative treatment and upgrading (MOTU), makes use of a series of thermo-catalytic operations to upgrade solubilized proteins and carbohydrates to hydrocarbon fuels, while another alternative focuses on the biological conversion of those substrates to oxygenated fuels in the form of mixed alcohols (MA). Both pathways rely on the production of polyurethanes from unsaturated fatty acids and valorization of unconverted solids for use as a material for synthesizing bioplastics. The assessment found similar, albeit slightly higher fuel yields and lower costs for the MA pathway, translating to a residual solids selling price of $899/ton for MA versus $1033/ton for MOTU as would be required to support a $2.50/gallon gasoline equivalent (GGE) fuel selling price. A variation of the MA pathway including subsequent upgrading of the mixed alcohols to hydrocarbon fuels (MAU) reflected a required solids selling price of $975/ton. Conclusion: The slight advantages observed for the MA pathway are partially attributed to a boundary that stops at oxygenated fuels versus fungible drop-in hydrocarbon fuels through a more complex MOTU configuration, with more comparable results obtained for the MAU scenario. In either case, it was shown that an integrated algal biorefinery can be economical through optimal strategies to utilize and valorize all fractions of the biomass.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13068-021-02098-3

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [28]Davis RW. Bioconversion of algal carbohydrates and proteins to fuels. DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) 2019 Project Peer Review; 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wiatrowski, M., Klein, B. C., Davis, R. W., Quiroz-Arita, C., Tan, E. C. D., Hunt, R. W., & Davis, R. E.
Affiliations
National Laboratory of the Rockies (US)
Corresponding author
Wiatrowski, Matthew
Venue
Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts
Published
2022-01-18
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
8-8
ISSN
2731-3654 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4220658590
Cited by
90
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (No. DE-AC36-08GO28308)
  • National Nuclear Security Administration (DE-NA0003525.)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Microbial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
Keywords
algal biorefinery, techno-economic analysis, mixed alcohols, polyurethane, bioplastics, oxygenated compounds, protein valorization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review