Life Cycle Energy and Carbon Footprints of Microalgal Biodiesel Production in Western Australia: A Comparison of Byproducts Utilization Strategies

This study compares the performances of anaerobic digestion and hydrothermal liquefaction as byproducts (defatted microalgae and glycerol) utilization strategies to offset overall life cycle energy and carbon footprints of microalgal biodiesel production in Western Australian (WA). Utilization of by...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gao, Xiangpeng, Yu, Yun, Wu, Hongwei
Format: Journal Article
Published: American Chemical Society 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/9809
_version_ 1848746057101475840
author Gao, Xiangpeng
Yu, Yun
Wu, Hongwei
author_facet Gao, Xiangpeng
Yu, Yun
Wu, Hongwei
author_sort Gao, Xiangpeng
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description This study compares the performances of anaerobic digestion and hydrothermal liquefaction as byproducts (defatted microalgae and glycerol) utilization strategies to offset overall life cycle energy and carbon footprints of microalgal biodiesel production in Western Australian (WA). Utilization of byproducts via anaerobic digestion or hydrothermal liquefaction enables the production of electricity and process heat, as well as the recovery of inherent nutrients. As a result, the anaerobic digestion route and hydrothermal liquefaction route substantially reduce life cycle energy inputs for producing 1 MJ biodiesel from 4.3 MJ (without byproducts utilization) to 1.3 and 0.7 MJ, yielding carbon footprints of ~80 and ~33 g CO2-eq/MJ biodiesel, respectively. The results indicate that hydrothermal liquefaction, which shows better life cycle performance and requires smaller reactor footprint than anaerobic digestion, can be another potential strategy to recover energy embedded in defatted microalgae. It is also evident that while vast coastal areas are available in WA for marine microalgaecultivation, further technological advances are required to realize a truly sustainable biodiesel production from microalgae. Sensitivity analyses suggest that key R&D areas are improvement of microalgae biological properties (e.g., growth rate and lipid content) and innovations in engineering designs (e.g., culture circulation velocity, methane yield during anaerobic digestion, and bio-oil yield during hydrothermal liquefaction).
first_indexed 2025-11-14T06:27:12Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-9809
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T06:27:12Z
publishDate 2013
publisher American Chemical Society
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-98092017-09-13T14:53:17Z Life Cycle Energy and Carbon Footprints of Microalgal Biodiesel Production in Western Australia: A Comparison of Byproducts Utilization Strategies Gao, Xiangpeng Yu, Yun Wu, Hongwei Hydrothermal liquefaction Microalgae Glycerol Life cycle analysis Biodiesel Biochar Bioslurry Bio-oil Anaerobic digestion Biomass This study compares the performances of anaerobic digestion and hydrothermal liquefaction as byproducts (defatted microalgae and glycerol) utilization strategies to offset overall life cycle energy and carbon footprints of microalgal biodiesel production in Western Australian (WA). Utilization of byproducts via anaerobic digestion or hydrothermal liquefaction enables the production of electricity and process heat, as well as the recovery of inherent nutrients. As a result, the anaerobic digestion route and hydrothermal liquefaction route substantially reduce life cycle energy inputs for producing 1 MJ biodiesel from 4.3 MJ (without byproducts utilization) to 1.3 and 0.7 MJ, yielding carbon footprints of ~80 and ~33 g CO2-eq/MJ biodiesel, respectively. The results indicate that hydrothermal liquefaction, which shows better life cycle performance and requires smaller reactor footprint than anaerobic digestion, can be another potential strategy to recover energy embedded in defatted microalgae. It is also evident that while vast coastal areas are available in WA for marine microalgaecultivation, further technological advances are required to realize a truly sustainable biodiesel production from microalgae. Sensitivity analyses suggest that key R&D areas are improvement of microalgae biological properties (e.g., growth rate and lipid content) and innovations in engineering designs (e.g., culture circulation velocity, methane yield during anaerobic digestion, and bio-oil yield during hydrothermal liquefaction). 2013 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/9809 10.1021/sc4002406 American Chemical Society restricted
spellingShingle Hydrothermal liquefaction
Microalgae
Glycerol
Life cycle analysis
Biodiesel
Biochar
Bioslurry
Bio-oil
Anaerobic digestion
Biomass
Gao, Xiangpeng
Yu, Yun
Wu, Hongwei
Life Cycle Energy and Carbon Footprints of Microalgal Biodiesel Production in Western Australia: A Comparison of Byproducts Utilization Strategies
title Life Cycle Energy and Carbon Footprints of Microalgal Biodiesel Production in Western Australia: A Comparison of Byproducts Utilization Strategies
title_full Life Cycle Energy and Carbon Footprints of Microalgal Biodiesel Production in Western Australia: A Comparison of Byproducts Utilization Strategies
title_fullStr Life Cycle Energy and Carbon Footprints of Microalgal Biodiesel Production in Western Australia: A Comparison of Byproducts Utilization Strategies
title_full_unstemmed Life Cycle Energy and Carbon Footprints of Microalgal Biodiesel Production in Western Australia: A Comparison of Byproducts Utilization Strategies
title_short Life Cycle Energy and Carbon Footprints of Microalgal Biodiesel Production in Western Australia: A Comparison of Byproducts Utilization Strategies
title_sort life cycle energy and carbon footprints of microalgal biodiesel production in western australia: a comparison of byproducts utilization strategies
topic Hydrothermal liquefaction
Microalgae
Glycerol
Life cycle analysis
Biodiesel
Biochar
Bioslurry
Bio-oil
Anaerobic digestion
Biomass
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/9809