Microalgae Commodities from Coal-Fired Power Plant Flue Gas CO 2 (Draft Final Report, October 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018)
The Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) operates an approximately 900-MWe coal fired-power plant at Stanton Energy Center (SEC), which was the site for this project to develop an integrated process for microalgae utilization of flue gas CO 2 for the production of biofuels and animal feeds. Microalgae have both potentially high yields (tons biomass/acre-year) and can be used for biofuels or high value animal feeds. The high biomass yields of microalgae cultures allows efficient use of land and water resources. They can also use wastewaters, recycle fertilizers, and have lower overall greenhouse gas emissions than conventional biofuels or animal feeds. However, many technical issues and technology gaps related to large-scale algae biomass production still must be resolved before such a process can be scaled-up. In this project, techno-economic analyses (TEAs) and life cycle assessments (LCAs) were carried out, projecting the costs and impacts of large-scale algae biomass cultivation for production of biofuels and animal feeds using OUC-SEC flue gas CO 2 . In addition, 3.5-m 2 (~ 40-ft 2 ) experimental raceway ponds were used for the cultivation of microalgae at OUC-SEC and also at the University of Florida. A large-scale algae farm was designed for a 1,300-acre site (~500-ha) located near the OUC-SEC plant, consisting of 400 hectares (1,000 acres) of paddle wheel mixed raceway ponds (each 4 ha), receiving flue gas piped approximately 3 km (2 miles) from the SEC plant. In the first year of this project (Budget Period 1, BP1), the TEA and LCA studies focused on the production of biogas produced from algae biomass and its use to replace coal at the power plant. However, due to the resulting very high cost of CO 2 mitigation, the process was modified to produce compressed natural gas (‘renewable natural gas’, RNG) for transportation fuel from the biogas, in conjunction with wastewater treatment by the algae cultures. During Budget Period 2 (BP2), the TEA and LCA studies focused on the production of animal feeds by the algae farm, using fresh water and agricultural fertilizers. In this case, CO 2 mitigation costs would be entirely covered if the algal biomass could be sold at between a two to three-fold premium above soybean feed, based on a higher nutritional value for the algal biomass. In support of the above analyses, microalgae cultivation experiments were carried out for over two years during this project in small 3.5-m 2 ponds at both SEC and the University of Florida. The most important results were the demonstration at SEC of the cultivation, on flue gas CO 2 , of filamentous algae biomass, which can be harvested at much lower cost than processes required for the colloidal algae species, as currently used by almost all algal mass culture biofuels and animal feeds projects. The yield of biogas production from the algal biomass was investigated by the University of Florida, and the value of the algal biomass as animal feed was projected based on biochemical analysis of the SEC ad UF biomasses. The conclusion from TEA/LCA carried out for the biogas case in BP1 was that a 400-ha algae system producing biomethane for co-firing at OUC-SEC could generate 27,500 MWh/yr of renewable power, offsetting 28,400 Mg CO 2eq /yr, which amounted to less than 1% of the CO 2 emitted by the SEC plant. (Mg = metric ton = 1.10 short tons). The overall cost was projected at $820/Mg of CO 2eq reduction, making this process unfeasible under any possible scenario. More favorable economics were projected when the biogas was converted to higher value transportation fuel, RNG, which also would benefit from renewable fuel (RINs) and possibly other credits. However, only by combining RNG production with municipal wastewater treatment in the algal ponds would CO 2 utilization result in no net cost or even be economically beneficial (i.e., generate income to the power plant). However, in that case the amount of CO 2 utilization would be even lower than that in the biogas case, because a large fraction of the carbon required would be supplied from the wastewater and CO 2 recovered during biogas upgrading to RNG. In brief, use of power plant CO 2 emissions for algal biofuels production was not favorable, even with optimistic assumptions about biomass productivity and biogas yields. For the animal feed case, developed during BP2, algal biomass would replace soybean feeds. The same scale 400-ha algal production plant was projected to produce 26,280 Mg per year of animal feed with a utilization of 45,300 Mg flue gas CO 2 taken up by the algal biomass. However, the process would result in a projected reduction of 112,500 Mg CO 2eq emissions per year, or roughly 1.9% of OUC-SEC emissions, mainly due to the large CO 2eq emissions from conventional soybean production. A major factor in this analysis were greenhouse gas emissions from land use changes. The cost of CO 2 utilization was projected at $116/Mg if the biomass sold for the same price as soybean meal, but if sold as a premium feed (e.g., based on high omega-3 fatty acid and carotenoid content), the power plant could actually charge for the CO 2 utilized. These economic projections are sensitive to assumptions underlying the TEA and LCA models, including biomass composition and the financial models used to project CAPEX and OPEX. Further development of an algal animal feed production using coal-fired power plant flue gas CO 2 is recommended based on the TEA and LCA, as well as experimental results. The required research and development is detailed in a technology gap analysis (Section 11), which focuses on the demonstrations of the cultivation of higher value filamentous algal biomass at OUC-SEC.