Comparison of Algal Biodiesel Production Pathways Using Life Cycle Assessment Tool
The consideration of algal biomass in biodiesel production increased very rapidly in the last decade. A life cycle assessment (LCA) study is presented to compare six different biodiesel production pathways (three different harvesting techniques, i.e., aluminum as flocculent, lime flocculent, and centrifugation, and two different oil extraction methods, i.e., supercritical CO2 (sCO2) and press and co-solvent extraction). The cultivation of Nannochloropsis sp. considered in a flat-panel photobioreactor (FPPBR). These algal biodiesel production systems were compared with the conventional diesel in a EURO 5 passenger car used for transport purpose (functional unit 1 person km (pkm). The algal biodiesel production systems provide lesser impact (22–105 %) in comparison with conventional diesel. Impacts of algal biodiesel on climate change were far better than conventional diesel, but impacts on human health, ecosystem quality, and resources were higher than the conventional diesel. This study recommends more practical data at pilot-scale production plant with maximum utilization of by-products generated during the production to produce a sustainable algal biodiesel.
KeywordsLife Cycle Assessment Impact Category Algal Biomass Ecosystem Quality Conventional Diesel
- Melis A, Happe T (2001) Hydrogen production: green algae as a source of energy. Plant Physiol Biochem 127:740–748Google Scholar
- Singh A, Olsen SI (2011b) Algal biofuels: key issues, sustainability and life cycle assessment. In: Petersen LS, Larsen H (eds) Energy systems and technologies for the coming century. Proceedings, Risø international energy conference, 10–12 May 2011, pp 275–282Google Scholar
- Singh A, Pant D, Olsen SI, Nigam PS (2012) Key issues to consider in microalgae based biodiesel production. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A: Energy Sci Res 29(1):687–700Google Scholar
- Wegeberg S, Felby C (2010) Algae biomass for bioenergy in Denmark biological/technical challenges and opportunities. University of Copenhagen, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar