Algal Biomass Organization Questions Accuracy of University of Virginia Algae Life Cycle Study
ABO Believes That Reliance on Obsolete Data and Faulty Assumptions Undermines All Conclusions
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Algal Biomass Organization (ABO), the trade association for the algae industry, today challenged the conclusions of a published report in Environmental Science and Technology claiming that “conventional crops have lower environmental impacts than algae in energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and water.” The report was based upon obsolete data and grossly outdated business models, and overlooked tremendous improvements in technology and processes across the production cycle. ABO believes strongly that these obsolete data and faulty assumptions seriously undermine the credibility of the study’s conclusions.
“We appreciate and support the interest in algae among the scientific community, and agree that examination of the life cycle impacts of algae for fuel processes is important”
“We appreciate and support the interest in algae among the scientific community, and agree that examination of the life cycle impacts of algae for fuel processes is important,” said Mary Rosenthal, executive director of ABO. “However, we expect such research to be based on current information, valid assumptions and proven facts. Unfortunately, this report falls short of those standards with its use of decades-old data and errant assumptions of current production and refining technologies.”
Among the many concerns of ABO about the report are:
• Assumptions about algae growth systems. The report uses a first-generation, raceway-style pond system as its benchmark. Many leading algae companies abandoned that approach years ago and have a variety of more advanced cultivation systems, some of which are unrelated to the methods the authors sought to assess.
• Assumptions about co-location. By assuming the production facility is not co-located with a large CO2 emitter, calculations for sourcing CO2 are flawed, resulting in a higher attribution of CO2 for algae plants. Most commercial-scale algae projects are being developed alongside major emitters in order to beneficially reuse CO2 that will take the place of equivalent carbon emissions from petroleum fuels.
• Assumptions about water use. The study assumes fresh water and non-potable salt water are equal. A sustainable industrial algae production model uses non-potable, non-agricultural water in the process of making liquid fuels.
• Assumptions about nutrient use. Because the report does not look at the full algae fuel cycle, ignored is the opportunity to consider the ability of algae producers to recycle nutrients and avoid such a substantial burden.
• Assumptions about energy use. Because the authors admittedly did not consider the full algae fuel cycle, which allows energy reuse through biodigester biogas combustion coupled with the carbon recycling from all of the aspects of biodigestion, the report errantly gives a higher emissions burden.
• Assumptions about purchase of CO2 and fertilizer. The base case assumes algae farmers will purchase CO2 and fertilizer, yet such an approach is so prohibitively expensive it would never happen in reality. Yet those inputs are the major drivers of the negative impacts in the study.
