Wednesday, 24 November 2010

MIT algae photobioreactor

Posted by Stella Kin

MIT algae photobioreactor
Link to youtube video of their triangular reactor.

One of the latest developments is the triangular reactor (Fig. 5). It combines the principle of a bubble column with mixing by in-built static mixers in an external ‘downcomer’. According to press releases from MIT and an external evaluation [139] this “3DMS-Reactor” exhibits an average productivity of 98 g dry weight m−2 day−1 over a period of 19 days even when under sub-optimal lighting conditions. Thus, this is one of the most productive algal cultivation systems ever built, and verges on the theoretical maximum average yield of 100 g m−2 d−1

Reference
Second Generation Biofuels: High-Efficiency Microalgae for Biodiesel Production

Minutes for meeting 5

Posted by Stella 
 
Wednesday 24 November
Present: Stella Kin, Louise Anton, Bryan McCulloch, Christopher Sanderson
Apologies: Rachel Nichol 
Next meeting:  Friday 26 November 

1. Discussion of research so far
Louise reiterated that the environmental and societal implications of algal biofuels were limited. Carbon off-setting can be applied through attaching bioreactors to powerstations to use as a source of CO2, using wastewater, and using the remaining biomass as fuel or to sell.
Bryan said from his research, GM looked promising for the future but there isn't anything viable at the moment. Discussion moved to other ways of maximising biomass output and oil output by reducing nitrogen input and light input.

Stella detailed the photobioreactor designs currently available. The most promising are the tubular design and vertical column bubble reactors. There was some concern whether a solar dependent bioreactor would be effective in Scotland, or whether an LED powered bioreactor would be prohibitively expensive. Once the algae type was settled on, comparative yields could be calculated.
2. Decision on photobioreactor design
The choices are narrowed down to tubular structure and vertical column bubble reactors. Team will continue to research these two before making a final decision on Friday.
3. Decision on GM
GM options are to be placed on hold for the moment.
4. Decision on algae
There was no consensus on which was best. By discounting GM as an option, the team should research and choose the algae with the highest yield and best suited to the conditions

5. Any other business
Possibilty of a Saturday or Sunday meeting so that we can stay on schedule for presentation rehearsal start on Monday. Louise gave her apologies as she will not be able to make a weekend meeting or the Monday one.
Chris suggested summarising some of our information and where we are up to on the weblog.
Louise and Bryan had problems logging in to the weblog. Stella suggested in future in the event of weblog failure, to email the information to her to try to post.
Mamen also stated that it would be acceptable to invest all of the money into research if an avenue looked viable. She also suggested writing a summary of the information we have accumulated so far for our own reference.

Action
1. Stella to reorganise some of the pbr research so that it is more user friendly as soon as possible.
2. Team to research tubular photobioreactors and vertical column bubble reactors, using the weblog as a starting point.
3. Team to look at most suitable algae type to use. Some of this information is embedded in the links in the weblog so Stella will dig it out and repost it.
4. Team to distill their research notes into short bullet points ready to paste into the presentation slides.
5. Chris to post a short summary of our work so far on the weblog.
6. Any other research still to go on the weblog should be posted as soon as possible.

Agenda for Meeting 5

Posted by Stella Kin 

24 November 2010
1. Discussion of research so far
2. Decision on photobioreactor design
3. Decision on incorporation of GM
4. Decision on algae
5. Any other business

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

Photobioreactor design

Posted by Stella Kin 

Design of Scaleable Photobioreactors for Mass Production of Algae for Biofuel Production 
A presentation from the University of Arizona on photobioreactors on open raceways and vertical bubble columns. 

Comparative evaluation of compact photobioreactors for large-scale monoculture of microalgae
Paper compares horizontal tubular photobioreactors and vertical bubble column and airlift vessel type photobioreactors and concludes that vertical reactors appear to be the only ones that can be effectively used in large-scale culture of microalgae. 

Bubble columns are more scaleable and provide a relatively homogeneous culture environment. In addition, the low surface– to–volume bubble columns demand less cooling. Vertical columns experience less photoinhibition during periods of high light intensity; during low light seasons such as winter, the vertical
reactors still receive substantial total radiation because they receive more reflected light than do
horizontal tubes.  


Photobioreactors for mass cultivation of algae (2007)
Another comaprison paper. See Table 1 or see below: 

Open ponds  

Adv: Relatively economical, easy to clean up after cultivation, good for mass cultivation of algae
Disadv: Little control of culture conditions, difficulty in growing algal cultures for long periods, poor productivity, occupy large land mass, limited to few strains of algae, cultures are easily contaminated


The best annual averaged bioproductivity of outdoor open algal ponds is ∼1 g dry weight m−2 h−1, while corn, sugar cane, and closed algal photobioreactors have achieved ∼2–3 g dry weight m−2 h−1

Vertical-column photobioreactors  

Aerated vertical columns




Air-lift bioreactors are similar to bubble column reactors, but differ by the fact that they contain a draft tube which improves circulation and oxygen transfer and equalizes shear forces in the reactor. The more homogeneous distribution of exposure time or higher hydrodynamic stress in the airlift reactor resulted in a higher growth rate. (See link) 

Vertical bubble columns




Adv: High mass transfer, good mixing with low shear stress, low energy consumption, high potentials for scalability, easy to sterilize, readily tempered, good for immobilization of algae, reduced photoinhibition and photo-oxidation
Disadv: Small illumination surface area, their construction require sophisticated materials, shear stress to algal
cultures, decrease of illumination surface area upon scale-up 


Flat-plate photobioreactors 
u-shaped disposable plastic bag located between two iron frames. Frame and plastic bag are 1.5m high and 2.5m long, with a volume of 250 L.



Adv: Large illumination surface area, suitable for outdoor cultures, good for immobilization of algae, good light path, good biomass productivities, relatively cheap, easy to clean up, readily tempered, low oxygen buildup 
Disadv: Scale-up require many compartments and support materials, difficulty in controlling culture temperature, some degree of wall growth, possibility of hydrodynamic stress to some algal strains 

Tubular photobioreactors  



Adv: Large illumination surface area, suitable for outdoor cultures, fairly good biomass productivities, relatively cheap
Disadv: Gradients of pH, dissolved oxygen and CO2 along the tubes, fouling, some degree of wall growth, requires large land space 


References

Some Papers Which May Be Useful

Posted by Bryan McCulloch

Biodiesel from algae: challenges and prospects
A paper which outlines all the things which should be considered when developing an algae bioreactor

Renewable fuels from algae: An answer to debatable land based fuels
A paper which compares algae biofuel production to that of 1st and 2nd generation biofuels

The economics of producing biodiesel from algae
A paper which gives an outline of costs for a (theoretical) large biodiesel refinery. Costing is done in US$

Commercialization potential of microalgae for biofuels production
A critical analysis of algae biofuel production and possibilities

Genetic engineering of algae for enhanced biofuel production
Paper which Stella posted earlier, which gives a good insight into the type of work which is being carried out into increasing oil reserves in the algae and other related ideas

Selection for fitness at the individual or population levels: Modelling effects of genetic modifications in microalgae on productivity and environmental safety
A paper which gives a theoretical model of genetically modified algae behaviour. The work is non-algae specific, i.e. just gives a general idea of what could happen, but is quite an interesting read

Light saturation and photoinhibition

Posted by Stella Kin 

Above a certain value of light intensity, a further increase in light level actually reduces the biomass growth rate (see figure) – photoinhibition – at light intensities only slightly greater than the light level at which the specific growth rate peaks.

Photoinhibition results from generally reversible damage to the photosynthetic apparatus, as a consequence of excessive light.

There are lots of papers that detail methods to overcome photoinhibition. 

Gordon (2007) advocates irradiating the algae with intense microsecond pulses of intense red light. Through turbulence, the algae are therefore cycled through light and dark zones at high frequency, allowing an increase in the algae's flux tolerance to light. Projected annual algal biomass yields could be increased from 1g dry weight m-2 h-1, to 100g.

Manufacturing processes of algae biofuels

Posted by Stella Kin 

Microalgae are sunlight-driven cell factories that convert CO2 to potential biofuels, foods and feeds.

Biodiesel production

The parent oil consists of triglycerides. It is reacted with methanol (transesterification) producing methyl esters of fatty acids, that are biodiesel, and glycerol.

Yields of methyl esters exceed 98%. The biodiesel is recovered by repeated washing with water to remove glycerol and methanol.

Biomass production
  • Photosynthetic growth requires light, carbon dioxide, water and inorganic salts (N, P, Si).
  • Temperature must remain generally within 20 to 30 °C.
  • To minimize expense, biodiesel production must rely on freely available sunlight, despite daily and seasonal variations in light levels.
Raceway ponds
  • Closed loop recirculation channel
  • 0.3m deep
  • Mixing and circulation by paddlewheel
  • Built in concrete or compacted earth, may be lined with white plastic
    During daylight, the culture is fed continuously in front of the paddlewheel where the flow begins Broth is harvested behind the paddlewheel, on completion of the circulation loop. The paddlewheel operates all the time to prevent sedimentation.

The largest raceway-based biomass production facility occupies an area of 440,000 m2 (Earthrise Nutritionals).

Disadvantages
  1. Temperature fluctuates within a diurnal cycle and seasonally.
  2. Evaporative water loss can be significant.
  3. Because of significant losses to atmosphere, raceways use carbon dioxide much less efficiently than photobioreactors.
  4. Productivity is affected by contamination with unwanted algae and microorganisms that feed on algae.
  5. The biomass concentration remains low because raceways are poorly mixed and cannot sustain an optically dark zone.
Raceways are perceived to be less expensive than photobioreactors, because they cost less to build and operate. Although raceways are low-cost, they have a low biomass productivity compared with photobioreactors.

Photobioreactors

Unlike open raceways, photobioreactors permit essentially single-species culture of microalgae for prolonged durations.

A tubular photobioreactor consists of an array of straight transparent tubes that are usually made of plastic or glass. This tubular array, or the solar collector, is where the sunlight is captured.

Light
  • Solar collector tubes 0.1m or less in diameter. Tube diameter is limited because light does not penetrate too deeply in the dense culture broth that is necessary for ensuring a high biomass productivity of the photobioreactor.
  • Microalgal broth is circulated from a reservoir (i.e. the degassing column) to the solar collector. to increase reflectance, and back to the reservoir.
  • The solar collector is oriented to maximize sunlight capture. In a typical arrangement, the solar tubes are placed parallel to each other and flat above the ground.

Instead of being laid horizontally on the ground, the tubes may be made of flexible plastic and coiled around a supporting frame to form a helical coil tubular photobioreactors.

  • Artificial illumination of tubular photobioreactors is technically feasible, but expensive compared with natural illumination. (See later)
Flow
  • Biomass sedimentation in tubes is prevented by maintaining highly turbulent flow. Flow is produced using either a mechanical pump (can damage biomass), or a gentler airlift pump.
CO2
  • The culture must periodically return to a degassing zone that is bubbled with air to strip out the accumulated oxygen. Typically, a continuous tube run should not exceed 80 m
  • Carbon dioxide is fed in the degassing zone in response to a pH controller. Additional carbon dioxide injection points may be necessary at intervals
Temperature
  • Outdoor tubular photobioreactors are effectively and inexpensively cooled using heat exchangers. Large tubular photobioreactors have been placed within temperature controlled greenhouses (Pulz, 2001), but doing so is prohibitively expensive for producing biodiesel.
Comparison of raceways and tubular photobioreactors

Variable
Photobioreactor facility
Raceway
Annual biomass production (kg)
100000
100000
Volumetric productivity (kg m-3 d-1)
1.54
0.12
Areal productivity
0.048 a
0.072 c
0.045 b
Biomass concentration in broth (kg m-3)
4
0.14
Dilution rate (d-1)
0.38
0.25
Area needed (m2)
5681
7828
Oil yield (w3 ha-1)
136.9 d
58.7 e
99.4 d
42.6 e
Annual CO2 consumption (kg)
183333
183333
System geometry m2/pond
132 parallel tubes / unit
80m long tubes
0.06 m tube diameter
978
12 m wide
82 m long
0.3 m deep
Number of units
6
8

a Based on facility area.
b Based on actual pond area.
c Based on projected area of photobioreactor tubes.
d Based on 70% by wt oil in biomass.
e Based on 30% by wt oil in biomass

Conclusion
Photobioreactors provide much greater oil yield per hectare compared with raceway ponds. This is because the volumetric biomass productivity of photobioreactors is more than 13-fold greater in comparison with raceway ponds

Harvesting
Recovery of microalgal biomass from the broth is necessary for extracting the oil. Biomass is easily recovered from the broth by filtration, centrifugation, and other means. Cost of biomass recovery can be significant. Biomass recovery from photobioreactor cultured broth costs only a fraction of the recovery cost for broth produced in raceways. This is because the typical biomass concentration that is produced in photobioreactors is nearly 30 times the biomass concentration that is generally obtained in raceways (see table). Thus, in comparison with raceway broth, much smaller volume of the photobioreactor broth needs to be processed to obtain a given quantity of biomass.

Economics
Recovery of oil from microalgal biomass and conversion of oil to biodiesel are not affected by whether the biomass is produced in raceways or photobioreactors.

Hence, the cost of producing the biomass is the only relevant factor for a comparative assessment of photobioreactors and raceways for producing microalgal biodiesel.

From table, estimated cost of producing microalgal biomass per kg is:

                                                       100 tonnes             10,000 tonnes
photobioreactors                             $2.95                       $0.47
raceways                                         $3.80                       $0.60  

economies of scale

and assuming CO2 at zero cost.

Assuming biomass contains 30% oil by weight, cost of biomass for providing a litre of oil:

photobioreactors           $1.40
raceways                       $1.81
Oil recovered from lower-cost biomass produced in bioreactors is estimated to cost $2.80/L. This assumes that recovery process contributes 50% to the cost of the final recovered oil.

A reasonable target price for microalgal oil is $0.48/L for algal diesel to be cost competitive with petrodiesel (in the US).

Improving economies using biorefineries
  • residual biomass to produce animal feed
  • anaerobic digestion to produce methane for generating electrical power to run the facility
Enhancing algal biology
  1. increase photosynthetic efficiency to enable increased biomass yield on light;
  2. enhance biomass growth rate;
  3. increase oil content in biomass;
  4. improve temperature tolerance to reduce the expense of cooling;
  5. eliminate the light saturation phenomenon so that growth continues to increase in response to increasing light level;
  6. reduce photoinhibition that actually reduces growth rate at midday light intensities that occur in temperate and tropical zones; and
  7. reduce susceptibility to photooxidation that damages cells.

    Reference