The Controlled Eutrophication ProcessUsing Microalgae for CO2 Utilization and Agricultural Fertilizer Recycling

Benemann, John R.; Olst, Jon C. Van; Massingill, Michael J.; Carlberg, J.A.; Weissman, Joseph C.; Brune, D. E.

doi:10.1016/b978-008044276-1/50227-0

Cited by 37 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, using algae cultivation systems to remove nutrients from agriculture irrigation effluent, in concert with carbon dioxide sequestration from the flue gas or atmosphere would be an alternative for fertilizer recovery and eutrophication control. Benemann et al (2006) evaluated the use of algae for carbon dioxide sequestration as well as for fertilizer recovery from agriculture drains in Southern California where 10,000 tons of nitrogen and phosphorus are discharged annually from irrigated agriculture into the sea. They found that the cost of carbon dioxide sequestration could be only $10/ton of CO 2 -C equivalent if biodiesel production and fertilizer recovery could also be achieved.…”

Section: Application In Fertilizer Recovery and Eutrophication Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Capture and Storage

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

is a leading geoscientist of his generation, venture capitalist, and a significant figure in the politics of Colorado. In this article he reviews some inconvenient truths about the timely implementation of CCS projects in the US, some of which may resonate in other countries seeking CO 2 reduction measures.T he greatest challenge to carbon capture and storage (CCS) is likely to be economic rather than technical. A September 2008 McKinsey report estimated that the first commercial scale CCS projects, potentially to be built soon after 2020, would cost €35-50 per metric ton of CO 2 abated. They assume that if 500+ projects were built by 2030, the cost might fall to €25-40 per ton. About two-thirds of that cost is for CO 2 capture.It is interesting to consider those costs on a global scale. A study by Pacala and Socolow implies that we need to cut a cumulative 25 Gton of CO 2 over the next 50 years just to cap the CO 2 concentration in the atmosphere at a modest 500 ppm (we are now at 390 ppm). If all of our solutions cost €25 per ton, the economic impact would be €625 billion ($833 billion) over the next 50 years.Reducing CO 2 is a global issue, but the US creates 20% of the problem. It also offers an interesting case study on the difficulty of finding practical solutions in a challenging political and economic environment. Hopefully along the way the reader will discover opportunities as well as pitfalls to avoid.According to the US Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (DOE-EIA), 98% of America's human-generated CO 2 comes from energy use, with 40% of that from electricity (coal and natural gas) and 33% from transportation (mostly petroleum). Coal produces 45% of America's electricity and natural gas produces 23% (see Figure 1).McKinsey's study notes that 'Retrofitting of existing power plants is likely to be more expensive than new installations, and economically feasible only for relatively new plants (with high efficiencies).' But according to the DOE-EIA, over the past 20 years coal contributed only 3.7% of total added US capacity while natural gas accounted for 88%. Few modern, efficient US coal plants have been added in the past 20 years.'Efficiency' is a term used to define the conversion of the theoretical energy content of a fuel into electricity. The McKinsey report notes that the energy required for the CCS CO 2 capture process increases the amount of coal that must be burned per MW-hour delivered, and estimates a CCS 'efficiency penalty' of 10%. This means that if a future coal plant could be built to achieve a 50% thermal efficiency, CCS would decrease that efficiency to 40%. Such a plant would be burning 50/40=1.25 times as much coal per MW-hour. And burning 25% more coal would also increase harmful emissions since CCS captures only about 90% of CO 2 and none of the other pollutants.CCS also faces storage challenges, such as site selection, CO 2 transportation costs, pipeline and CCS site permits, and uncertainties in monitoring CO 2 sequestration. Leakage of just 0.5% per year w...

show abstract

Section: Application In Fertilizer Recovery and Eutrophication Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Capture and Storage

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reasons for the status quo are unclear, but in part may be due to ignorance about the technology, the perception that the final effluent generated does not comply with standards set by DWA, a perceived skills shortage, and an apparent lack of will to address sewage treatment management issues, due mainly to the high costs of infrastructure repair and upgrade. This is in direct contrast with global sentiment to IAPS/AIWPS technology which is currently in use in the USA, India, New Zealand and many other countries (Table 1; Benemann, 2010).…”

Section: Iaps As a Global Wastewater Treatment Technologymentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Although CO 2 availability within wastewater treatment HRAOPs depends primarily on the heterotrophic oxidation of organic compounds by bacteria (Weissman and Goebel, 1987;Oswald, 1988;Craggs, 2005), domestic sewage typically contains insufficient carbon to fully support optimal algal production (3-7 C:N ratio in sewage versus 6-15 C:N in algal biomass) (Benemann et al, 2003). Recently it was shown that addition of CO 2 to wastewater HRAOPs enhanced algal productivity by at least 30% (Park and Craggs, 2011b) and reduced nitrogen loss by ammonia volatilisation providing more nitrogen for recovery by assimilation into biomass (Park and Craggs, 2011).…”

Section: Iaps Design and Operationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Belmont Valley integrated algae pond system in retrospect

Mambo¹,

Westensee²,

Zuma³

et al. 2014

WSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated Algae Pond Systems (IAPS) are a derivation of the Oswald-designed Algal Integrated Wastewater Pond Systems (AIWPS®) and combine the use of anaerobic and aerobic bioprocesses to effect sewage treatment. IAPS technology was introduced to South Africa in 1996 and a pilot plant designed and commissioned at the Belmont Valley WWTW in Grahamstown. The system has been in continual use since implementation, and affords secondarily treated water for reclamation according to its design specifications, which most closely resemble those of the AIWPS Advanced Secondary Process. In this paper IAPS as a municipal sewage treatment technology is re-examined in relation to design and operation, the underpinning biochemistry of nutrient removal by algae is described, and a retrospective is provided on the demonstration system at the Belmont Valley WWTW. In addition to presenting details of the process flow, several shortcomings and/or oversights are highlighted and, in particular, the need for an appropriate tertiary treatment component. However, despite the use of IAPS for sewage treatment in many countries, this technology is still viewed with some scepticism. Thus, a major purpose of this overview is to provide a synthesis of available information on IAPS and an appraisal of its use for municipal sewage treatment.

show abstract

“…An efficiency of algal CO 2 capture in open ponds of 30% has been claimed [51,53]. However, actual yields in open ponds have proved disappointing and maintaining desired algal cultures in such ponds has turned out to be difficult [54]. The value claimed to be achievable in ponds for algal capture of CO 2 is moreover well below the value for CO 2 capture and sequestration (CCS) in aquifers or depleted oil and gas fields.…”

Section: Microalgal Biofuels From Ponds and Bioreactorsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Microalgal and Terrestrial Transport Biofuels to Displace Fossil Fuels

Reijnders

2009

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Terrestrial transport biofuels differ in their ability to replace fossil fuels. When both the conversion of solar energy into biomass and the life cycle inputs of fossil fuels are considered, ethanol from sugarcane and biodiesel from palm oil do relatively well, if compared with ethanol from corn, sugar beet or wheat and biodiesel from rapeseed. When terrestrial biofuels are to replace mineral oil-derived transport fuels, large areas of good agricultural land are needed: about 5x10 8 ha in the case of biofuels from sugarcane or oil palm, and at least 1.8-3.6x10 9 ha in the case of ethanol from wheat, corn or sugar beet, as produced in industrialized countries. Biofuels from microalgae which are commercially produced with current technologies do not appear to outperform terrestrial plants such as sugarcane in their ability to displace fossil fuels. Whether they will able to do so on a commercial scale in the future, is uncertain.

show abstract

The Controlled Eutrophication ProcessUsing Microalgae for CO2 Utilization and Agricultural Fertilizer Recycling

Cited by 37 publications

References 5 publications

Carbon Capture and Storage

Carbon Capture and Storage

The Belmont Valley integrated algae pond system in retrospect

Microalgal and Terrestrial Transport Biofuels to Displace Fossil Fuels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About