CO - World Aquaculture Society

Valuing Environmental
Benefits of Microalgal
Biodiesel
Fu-Sung Frank Chiang, Chin-Hwa Sun
Wen Yi Lin, Pei-Ing Wu and Lee-Jung Lu
1
Aquaculture America 2012 Las Vegas
LOGO
Motivation
Energy
Security
Climate
Change
Sustainability
Land
Subsidence
Biofuel
Algae Biodiesel
Reduction of carbon dioxide and air pollution emissions
Environmental Benefits of Microalgal Biodiesel
2
Main Objective
 Unlike other studies which conduct economic
analyses of the biofuel supply and demand by
means of comparative analysis on the
production economics of biofuels, a method is
developed in this study to estimate the values of
environmental benefits from producing the
microalgal biodiesel.
CO2 fixation
 Air quality improvement (pollutant
reduction)
3
Overview of Biofuel Development
 There are many literatures described the development,
such as type of crops, production, productivity, advantages,
problems, cost and benefit, etc. For details, please see
Cardona & S’anchez (2007), Cardona et al. (2010), Cheng
et al. (2008), S’anchez & Cardona (2008), Huber (2009),
etc.
 In short, there have been concerns over crop-based
biofuel’s environmental impacts on land use and increasing
food prices caused by the resource usage competition from
producing corn-based ethanol, sugarcane-based ethanol,
and soy-based biodiesel. Thus, recently biofules from algae
is becoming another focus of attention.
4
Environmental Impact of using Biofuel
 Several studies indicated that biofuel can
significantly reduce the polluting emissions,
such as HC, CO, CO2, PM, NOx, SOx, etc.
(see Balat et al. (2008), Demirbas (2009),
Najafi et al. (2009)).
 With the annual production, the values of
energy substitution rate, total suspended
particulates (TSP), sulfur oxides (SOx), and
nitrogen oxides (NOx) are then computed to
estimate the benefits of air pollution
reduction.
5
Why Micro Algae?
 Fish ponds left idle or causing land
subsidence are not all in the area reached
by tides.
 The water demand for micro-algae
cultivation is less than what fish and
shrimp cultivation require.
6
Land Source for Algae Farming?
Opportunity cost issue on switching
from fish farming to algae farming
Problem-solving approach to use both
the fish ponds set-aside and the fish
ponds with land subsidence problem
7
One of the Options
Conceptual Model
Market Value (MV) Method
MV=P*△Y
MV: Market Value
△Y: Changes in market good
P: Price of the market good
9
Equation (I)
EB = EBPLTR + EBCO2
where EB is the environmental benefits,
EBPLTR is the environmental benefits of
pollutant reduction, and
EBCO2 is the environmental benefits of
CO2 fixation.
10
Equation (II)
EB = EBPLTR + EBCO2
= ΣPLTRi × UABCi ＋CO2FIR×MABP×PCO2
=△TSP ×UABCTSP＋△SOx × UABCSOx＋△CO ×UABCCO－
△NOx×UABCNOx ＋CO2FIR×MABP×PCO2
where PLTR is the pollutant reduction,
UABC is the unit abatement cost,
CO2FIR is the CO2 fixation rate (1.88),
MABP is microalgae biomass productivity (91.25), and
PCO2 is the Price of CO2 (NT$750/M.T. CO2).
11
The Possible Areas for Algae Farming
in Taiwan
Case 1. Idle/Retired fish ponds: 3,790 ha
(accounted 10.54% of total fish
ponds)
Case 2. Idle/Retired fish ponds and Fish
ponds located in the serious landsubsided areas: 14,511 ha
(40.37%)
Data Sources: 1) Taiwan Fisheries Statistics Yearbook, Fisheries Agency, 2010; and 2) Survey Report, Water
Resources Agency, Taiwan, 2010.
12
Estimated Environmental Benefits
of CO2 Fixation
EBCO2= CO2FIR×MABP×PCO2
where EBCO2= is the environmental benefits of CO2
fixation and PCO2 is NT$750 estimated by the Taiwanese
government agency in 2009.
Case 1: EBCO2= 1.88×91.25 ×3,790×750=NT$0.49 billion
Case 2: EBCO2= 1.88 ×91.25 × 18,299 ×750=NT$2.35
billion
World Carbon Transactions in 2009
EUETS
CCX
Quantity
(MtCO2e)
Value
(M US$)
Average Price
(US/M.T.CO2)
6,326
41
118,474
50
18.7
1.2
Source: World Bank, 2010, State and Trend of Carbon Market 2010.
EUETS: European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme
CCX: Chicago Climate Exchange
14
Environmental Benefits of CO2 Fixation
EBCO2= CO2FIR×MABP×PCO2
where EBCO2= is the environmental benefits of CO2
fixation and PCO2 is the world price.
Case 1: EBCO2= 1.88×91.25 ×3,790×US$18.7x30=NT$0.36
billion
Case 2: EBCO2= 1.88 ×91.25 × 18,299 ×US$18.7
x30=NT$1.76 billion
Production of Biodiesel
Biodiesel Production per ha
= Area x Growth rate x Ratio of oil content x Neutral
fat content × Extraction yield
•Botryococcus braunii for freshwater, oil content = 61.5%
•Nannochloropsis sp. for saltwater, oil content = 34%
•Neutral fat content = 70%
•Extraction yield = 90%
Estimated Production of Biodiesel
Case 1:
Saltwater: 2,123 × 91.25 × 34% × 70% × 90%
= 41,496 M.T./year
Freshwater: 1,667 × 91.25 × 61.5% × 70% × 90%
= 58,936 M.T./year
Case 2:
Saltwater: 9,735 × 91.25 × 34% × 70% × 90%
= 190,278 M.T./year
Freshwater: 8,564 × 91.25 × 61.5% × 70% × 90%
= 302,779 M.T./year
Biodiesel Production from Algae
Case 1
Case 2
Types of Water
Saltwater
Freshwater
Saltwater
Freshwater
Area
2,123
1,667
9,735
8,564
Biodiesel Production
(M.T.)
100,432
493,057
% of National Diesel
Consumption in 2009
3.10%
15.24%
Note: 1. Biodiesel Production = Area (ha) × Proliferation Rate (M.T./ha/year) × the ratio of oil contents
2. The average proliferation rate of Nannochloropsis sp. is 36.5 (M.T./ha/year)
18
Air Pollutants Produced by Diesel
Autos in Taiwan in 2009
Unit: M.T.
Type
TSP
SOx
NOx
CO
Diesel Pickup
1,501
167
5,927
4,089
Diesel
Truck/Bus
15,829
1,151
223,970
81,755
Total
17,330
1,318
229,897
85,844
Data Source: Taiwan, 2009.
Estimated Average Pollutant Reduction
Unit: %
Case 1
Case 2
B3
B15
CO
-4.35
-9.75
PM
-4.56
-9.81
NOx
+0.3
+1.5%
SOx
-3
-15
Pollutant
Unit Reduction Cost of Mobile Sources
Unit Reduction Cost
Consumer
Price Index
TSP
2006
100.00
44,645
2008
105.39
NOX
CO
361,000
29,250
54,209
47,051 380,458
30,827
57,131
SOX
Data Source: Environmental Protection Administration, Taiwan.
Unit: NT$ (1US$ = 30NT$)
21
Estimated Environmental Benefits
of Pollutant Reduction
EBPLTR=ΣPLTRi × UABCi
=△TSP ×UABCTSP＋△SOx × UABCSOx＋△CO ×UABCCO－ △NOx×UABCNOx
Case 1:
EBPLTR = 17,994 × 4.59% × 47,051 + 1,331 × 3% × 380,458
+ 88,991 × 4.35% ×57,131 - 229,693×0.3%×30,827
=NT$0.27 billion
Case 2:
EBPLTR=17,994 × 9.81% × 47,051 + 1,331 × 15% × 380,458
+ 88,991 × 9.75% × 57,131 - 229,693×1.5%× 30,827
=NT$0.55 billion
Estimated Value of
Environmental Benefits
Value of CO2 Fixation
(Billion NT$)
(1)
Value of Air Pollutant
Reduction (Billion NT$)
(2)
Environmental Benefits
(Billion NT$)
(3)=(1)+(2)
Case 1
Case 2
0.49
2.35
(US$78 M)
0.27
0.55
(US$18 M)
0.76
2.9
(US$0.1 B)
23
Thank You.
24
LOGO