Simply would you prefer to directly burn microalgae biomass for electricity and/or heating to lipid extraction, which can be converted to biodiesel as a trabsport fuel. Please consider the technology, ease of application and economical advantage. References will be appreciated.
Based on the parameter you provided (calorific value), the biodiesel obtained from the algae biomass will have a higher calorific value as compared to the algae biomass itself. Therefore, the combustion of the algae biomass will be less preferred as compared to the biodiesel.
However, if you are considering other factors such as technology, ease of application and economical advantage in the choice of either biomass combustion or its conversion to biodiesel, then your choice will be based on the end use of the energy product. Although, the biodiesel will still have precedence over combustion of algae biomass due to the fact that combustion of algae biomass will require bulk handling of materials with low calorific value while the biodiesel will have higher calorific value that is worth the bulk handling of the liquid transport fuel. This implies that you are paying higher price to handle material with low calorific value if you are to opt for algae biomass combustion
Combustion is easy , simple , developed and direct energy extraction technology. It is widely used for electricity generation. Almost 66% of global electricity generation is through combustion of coal , gas and oil where as share of biofuels is not more than 5%. It is cheaper in terms of cost .Renewables are not yet competitive to replace fossil fuels.In terms of economic benefits, combustion is preferred. You can see the challenges associated with algae oil extraction from this article titled Biofuels from algae: challenges and potential at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3152439/
The combustion of algal biomass will increase CO2 level that leads to global warming which is very serious concern of the current century.
The combustion of biofuel from algae will also generate CO2. However , the choice of technology depends on economies of scale, purpose, Cost and scope.Moreover, biomass are considered to be neutral fuels in terms of CO2. As they absorb CO2 during their growth and on combustion they release the same amount of CO2 yielding zero net effect on environment cycle and considered as renewable.
Combustion requires low water content. Drying algal biomass may be costly. Oil extraction costs may be parcially covered by simultaneous extraction of algal substances with high comercial value, as vitamins, pigments, enzymes ...
It depends on the moisture content and the question is, do you mean net or gross calorific value. In the case of high moisture content the net calorific value is poor. Algae can be transferred to biogas and that can, economic size of the plant provided, upgraded to biomethane which can be used as an Otto engine fuel easily. But I can not say if this is economically feasible or not on current fuel prices.
Biodiesel or bioplastic production from algae will be more economical for energy
After the extraction of oil and other important ingredients the spent biomass can be considered for burning or for converting to other biofuels if it has been proved to be toxic or if it has no other suitable uses like animal and poultry feed.
its better to use it after converting to bio diesel via transisterification process
In order to be economically viable, biodiesel from algae oils or bioethanol from algae carbohydrates require low algae production costs, using, for example, wastewater as a culture medium, and also efficient and inexpensive downstream processing for recover the biomass and separate oils or sugars.
lipid extraction is a better. Depending upon lipid type you can go for esterification (acidic catalyst reaction ) or transesterification (basic catalyat reaction). Your catalyst could be homogeneous or heterogeneous).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Biota
- Eukaryota
- Fungi