The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Whole Algae Hydrothermal Liquefaction: 2014 State of Technology
Open accessAbstract
This report describes the base case yields and operating conditions for converting whole microalgae via hydrothermal liquefaction and upgrading to liquid fuels. This serves as the basis against which future technical improvements will be measured.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
One of the foundations of this work integrates CHG with the HTL system, but cannot achieve its $3 GGE-1 MFSP target, as the cost of HTL with CHG already surpasses $3 GGE-1 without even factoring in the cost of biomass.
“It should be noted that one of the foundations of this work integrates CHG with the HTL system [13], but cannot achieve its $3 GGE -1 MFSP target, as the cost of HTL with CHG already surpasses $3 GGE -1 without even factoring in the cost of biomass.”
From Microalgae to biofuels through hydrothermal liquefaction: Open-source techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
The paper integrates CHG with HTL and reports diesel selling prices above its $3/GGE performance goal. But Table 6 (Modeled conversion cost progression; page unavailable) puts conversion costs, including CHG and excluding feedstock, at $2.36/GGE for the 2014 case and $1.18/GGE for the 2022 projection—not above $3/GGE as claimed. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredJones et al. (2014) reported an MFSP of $1.19 LGE-1 ($4.49 GGE-1) assuming a biomass purchase price of $430 dry ton-1.
“The model developed in this work was first validated against the original work in Jones et al. (2014), which reported an MFSP (in 2011$) of $1.19 LGE -1 ($4.49 GGE -1 ) assuming a biomass purchase price of $430 dry ton -1 [13].”
From Microalgae to biofuels through hydrothermal liquefaction: Open-source techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Table 6 (Modeled conversion cost progression; page unavailable) gives a $430 per US ton algae feedstock cost for the 2022 projection. It lists $4.49 per gallon of diesel, not per GGE, and $15.57 per gallon for the 2014 state-of-technology case. The cited passage does not report an MFSP of $1.19/LGE ($4.49/GGE). (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSome of the most detailed HTL model assessments to date in Jones et al. (2014) and Knorr et al. (2013) have not yet developed a sensitivity analysis for varying reaction temperature.
“Some of the most detailed HTL model assessments to date in Jones et al. (2014) [13] and Knorr et al. (2013) [24] have not yet developed a sensitivity analysis for varying reaction temperature.”
From Microalgae to biofuels through hydrothermal liquefaction: Open-source techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Section 1.0 identifies this report as a modeled assessment of AHTL costs, and section 1.3 describes its model inputs and planned work on space velocity. The passages found do not establish the claim that a reaction-temperature sensitivity analysis had not yet been developed, or that this was among the most detailed HTL assessments. This verdict concerns Jones et al. only; the cited Knorr paper is not the source being audited. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBiomass price and fuel yield have the greatest effect on the minimum fuel selling price; higher biocrude yields and lower feedstock costs drive down the MFSP considerably.
“Biomass price and fuel yield have the greatest effect on the minimum fuel selling price (MFSP); higher yields of biocrude and lower feedstock costs drive down the MFSP considerably, as demonstrated in sensitivity analyses of HTL in Jones et al. (2014) [13], Zhu et al. (2019) [14], and Gu et al. (2020) [15].”
From Microalgae to biofuels through hydrothermal liquefaction: Open-source techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
In “Modeled conversion cost progression” (Table 6; page not provided), the projected case has lower feedstock cost, higher AHTL oil and diesel yields, and a substantially lower diesel selling price. The section also identifies dewatered algae cost as a significant factor in final fuel cost. But the table compares two cases with multiple changes; it does not establish through a sensitivity analysis that biomass price and fuel yield have the greatest effects on selling price. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe HTL system boundary contribution to GWP in Jones et al. (2014) varies between +9.1 and +20.5 g CO2 eq MJ-1 depending on system boundary assumptions.
“The HTL system boundary contribution to GWP in Jones et al. (2014) varies between +9.1 and +20.5 g CO2 eq MJ -1 depending on system boundary assumptions [13]; however, differences in certain assumptions like fuel yield and nutrient recycle are not accounted for.”
From Microalgae to biofuels through hydrothermal liquefaction: Open-source techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Table 5 (Environmental Sustainability Metrics; page unavailable) reports 9.1 g CO₂-e/MJ fuel for the 2022 projected conversion plant, but does not report 20.5. It gives 20.0 for the 2014 case including summer algae drying and 20.4 for projected biogenic emissions; the figures therefore do not establish the claimed range as a result of system-boundary assumptions alone. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The NER equivalent of the HTL plant system boundary is 0.14 in the reference model, reported as fossil energy consumption.
“The NER equivalent of the HTL plant system boundary is 0.14 in the reference model, reported as fossil energy consumption [13].”
From Microalgae to biofuels through hydrothermal liquefaction: Open-source techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Table 5 (Modeled conversion cost progression; page not available) reports conversion-plant fossil energy consumption of 0.14 MJ fossil energy per MJ fuel for the 2022 modeled projection. It reports 0.18 for the 2014 state-of-technology case. The paper does not label 0.14 an NER equivalent or identify the 2022 projection as the “reference model.” (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe sensitivity analyses in Jones et al. (2014) and Zhu et al. (2019) are performed on the total fuel selling price, which includes the cost of biomass.
“The sensitivity analyses in both Jones et al. (2014) [13] and Zhu et al. (2019) [14] are performed on the total fuel selling price, which includes the cost of biomass.”
From Microalgae to biofuels through hydrothermal liquefaction: Open-source techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
In “Modeled conversion cost progression” (Table 6; page not available), the paper reports a diesel selling price and a feedstock cost contribution, and the accompanying text says dewatered-algae cost significantly affects final fuel cost. It does not establish that a sensitivity analysis was performed on the total fuel selling price; searches for “sensitivity analysis” and “sensitivity fuel selling price” found no such passage. This verdict addresses only the cited 2014 source, not Zhu et al. (2019). (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredJones et al. (2014) reports an MFSP of $1.26 per liter gasoline equivalent for continuous HTL with biomass purchased at $474 per dry metric ton and a 51% biocrude yield.
“Jones et al. (2014) reports techno-economic assessment (TEA) results based on optimistic cost targets, where biomass is optimistically purchased at $474 per dry metric ton and the continuous HTL process produces a 51% biocrude yield to achieve an MFSP of $1.26 per liter gasoline equivalent (LGE) ($4.77 per gallon gasoline equivalent (GGE)) [13].”
From Microalgae to biofuels through hydrothermal liquefaction: Open-source techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Because of the assumptions used, variable operating costs in this work are not directly comparable with the primary reference literature in Jones et al. (2014).
“Because of these assumptions, variable operating costs were not directly comparable with the primary reference literature in Jones et al. (2014) [13].”
From Microalgae to biofuels through hydrothermal liquefaction: Open-source techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
The model developed in this work was validated against Jones et al. (2014).
“The model developed in this work was first validated against the original work in Jones et al. (2014)”
From Microalgae to biofuels through hydrothermal liquefaction: Open-source techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Gravity separation may not sufficiently separate HTL product phases due to biocrude residues lost in the aqueous phase.
“In reality, gravity separation may not sufficiently separate HTL product phases due to the presence of biocrude residues lost in the aqueous phase [13].”
From Microalgae to biofuels through hydrothermal liquefaction: Open-source techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
The predictive Soave-Redlich Kwong (PSRK) equation of state has seen precedence in algal HTL literature from Jones et al. (2014).
“A derivative of SRK, the predictive Soave-Redlich Kwong (PSRK) equation of state has seen precedence in algal HTL literature from Jones et al. (2014) [13] 2 .”
From Microalgae to biofuels through hydrothermal liquefaction: Open-source techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Section 1.2 says the algal characteristics were used in AspenPlus models, but it does not identify a thermodynamic method. Searches for PSRK, predictive Soave–Redlich–Kwong, SRK, and equation of state found no passage establishing that this paper used PSRK for algal HTL. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), R., Jones, S., USDOE, Zhu, Y., Anderson, D., Hallen, R., Elliott, D., Schmidt, A., Albrecht, K., Hart, T., et al. (2014) · doi:10.2172/1126336 · Cited by 300
Self-citationSudasinghe, N. M., Dungan, B. N., Lammers, P. J., Albrecht, K. O., Elliott, D., Hallen, R., & Schaub, T. M. (2013) · Fuel · doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2013.11.019 · Cited by 195
Self-citationElliott, D. C., Hart, T. R., & Neuenschwander, G. G. (2006) · Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · doi:10.1021/ie060031o · Cited by 156
Self-citationDavis, R. E., Fishman, D. B., Frank, E. D., Johnson, M. C., Jones, S. B., Kinchin, C. M., Skaggs, R. L., Venteris, E. R., & Wigmosta, M. S. (2014) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es4055719 · Cited by 151
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Catalytic hydroprocessing of microalgae-derived biofuels: a review
Yang, C., Li, R., Cui, C., Liu, S., Qiu, Q., Ding, Y., Wu, Y., & Zhang, B. (2016) · Green Chemistry · doi:10.1039/c6gc01239f · Cited by 167
Elliott, D. C. (2016) · Algal Research · doi:10.1016/j.algal.2015.12.002 · Cited by 102
Self-citationTechno-economic uncertainty quantification of algal-derived biocrude via hydrothermal liquefaction
Jiang, Y., Jones, S. B., Zhu, Y., Snowden-Swan, L. J., Schmidt, A. J., Billing, J. M., & Anderson, D. B. (2019) · Algal Research · doi:10.1016/j.algal.2019.101450 · Cited by 80
Self-citationZhu, Y., Jones, S. B., Schmidt, A. J., Albrecht, K. O., Edmundson, S. J., & Anderson, D. B. (2019) · Algal Research · doi:10.1016/j.algal.2019.101467 · Cited by 77
Self-citationSequential Hydrothermal Liquefaction characterization and nutrient recovery assessment
Martinez-Fernandez, J. S., & Chen, S. (2017) · Algal Research · doi:10.1016/j.algal.2017.05.022 · Cited by 48
A Comparison of Energy Consumption in Hydrothermal Liquefaction and Pyrolysis of Microalgae
Yang, C., Wu, J., Zhao, D., Zhang, B., Cui, C., & Ding, Y. (2017) · Trends in Renewable Energy · doi:10.17737/tre.2017.3.1.0013 · Cited by 46
Reißmann, D., Thrän, D., & Bezama, A. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.280 · Cited by 25
Continuous Hydrothermal Liquefaction for Biofuel and Biocrude Production from Microalgal Feedstock
Lababpour, A. (2018) · ChemBioEng Reviews · doi:10.1002/cben.201700017 · Cited by 23
Hydrothermal liquefaction of aquatic Feedstocks
Biller, P. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-101029-7.00003-5 · Cited by 19
Zhang, B., Wang, L., Li, R., Rahman, Q. M., & Shahbazi, A. (2017) · Energy & Fuels · doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b02080 · Cited by 16
Magalhães, B. D. C., Checa, R., Lorentz, C., Voellinger, T., Hertzog, J., Carré, V., Aubriet, F., Afanasiev, P., Laurenti, D., & Geantet, C. (2025) · Energy & Fuels · doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5c00575 · Cited by 8
Advances in liquefaction for the production of hydrocarbon biofuels
Fraga, G. L. L., Batalha, N., Kumar, A., Bhaskar, T., Targinovna, K. M., & Perkins, G. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-823306-1.00009-1 · Cited by 6
USDOE, Watkins, J., Kumar, A., & Valdez, P. J. (2025) · doi:10.2172/2500903 · Cited by 3
Papadokonstantakis, S., Gambardella, A., Askmar, J., & Ding, Y. (2018) · Computer-aided chemical engineering/Computer aided chemical engineering · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-64241-7.50287-1 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), R., Jones, S., (NNSA), U. N. N. S. A., Zhu, Y., Snowden-Swan, L., Anderson, D., Hallen, R., Schmidt, A., Albrecht, K., & Elliott, D.
- Affiliations
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (US)
- Published
- 2014-06-01
- OpenAlex
- W2335815922
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.osti.gov
- Locations
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- USDOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
- DOE (AC05-76RL01830)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Fuel Technology › Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
- Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Catalysis › Catalysis and Hydrodesulfurization Studies
- Keywords
- hydrothermal liquefaction, microalgae, biofuel upgrading, liquid fuels, operating conditions
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