Techno-Economic Assessment for

Opportunities to Integrate Algae

Farming with Wastewater Treatment
Jennifer Clippinger and Ryan Davis
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-5100-75237
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC September 2021
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

 Techno-Economic Assessment for
Opportunities to Integrate Algae
Farming with Wastewater Treatment
Jennifer Clippinger and Ryan Davis
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Suggested Citation
Clippinger, Jennifer, and Ryan Davis. 2021. Techno-Economic Assessment for
Opportunities to Integrate Algae Farming with Wastewater Treatment. Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5100-75237.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/75237.pdf.

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-5100-75237
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC September 2021
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 15013 Denver West Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov
 NOTICE

This work was authored in part by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable
Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding
provided by U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Bioenergy Technologies
Office. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S. Government.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable

Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991

and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available
free via www.OSTI.gov.

Cover Photos by Dennis Schroeder: (clockwise, left to right) NREL 51934, NREL 45897, NREL 42160, NREL 45891, NREL 48097,
NREL 46526.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.

 Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge guidance and inputs furnished through discussions with MicroBio
Engineering (Kyle Poole, Ian Woertz, Tryg Lundquist, and John Benemann) and
NeoChloris/University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Charles Stack, Prasad Kodukula, and
Lance Schideman) for helpful information utilized in conducting this analysis. We also thank
collaborators from Gross-Wen Technologies (Jens Dancer and Martin Gross) for providing
additional feedback during final review of this report.

iii
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
List of Acronyms
$/lb dollars per pound
AD anaerobic digestion
AFDW ash-free dry weight
BGD billion gallons per day
BGGE/yr billion gallons gasoline equivalent per year
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
CAP combined algal processing
CHNOSP carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, phosphorus
CO2 carbon dioxide
COD chemical oxygen demand
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
g/day grams per day
g/L grams per liter
g/m2/day grams per square meter per day
GGE gallon gasoline equivalent
HCSD high-carbohydrate Scenedesmus
HPSD high-protein Scenedesmus
MBSP minimum biomass selling price
mg/L milligrams per liter
MG million gallons
MGD million gallons per day
MM million
N/P nitrogen and phosphorus
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
O&M operations and maintenance
PBR photobioreactor
TEA techno-economic analysis
tons/yr tons per year
WWT wastewater treatment
WWTP wastewater treatment plant

iv
Executive Summary
This report describes the investigation of the economic and scalability potential for algal biomass
production based on opportunities to couple algae farming with wastewater treatment (WWT).
This activity was motivated in part by recent increased attention in both the research
communities and industry for utilizing algae to treat municipal wastewater, in many cases
projecting substantial economic potential for algal WWT relative to other more traditional WWT
methods. While typically those perspectives appropriately view treated wastewater as the
primary product output and algal biomass as a secondary coproduct, to enable a consistent
comparison against NREL’s standard algae farm models (i.e. solving for minimum biomass
selling price (MBSP) for a farm configured to maximize biomass production while minimizing
water footprint sourced from a local groundwater resource), the algal WWT cases evaluated in
this study also solved for MBSP while assigning a treatment coproduct credit as a means to
valorize the treated water. From a techno-economic analysis perspective taking the viewpoint of
the algae farm, algal WWT offers two primary advantages over traditional algal biomass
cultivation:

1. A large fraction of nutrients, as well as a portion of carbon, required for meeting algal
biomass compositional demands are met “for free” based on nutrients and organic carbon
in the incoming wastewater. These are otherwise required to be purchased as fertilizers
and carbon dioxide (CO2), which typically constitute roughly $100/ton or more of
biomass production costs.
2. Significant revenue can be generated as wastewater treatment “coproduct credits” in the
form of avoided expenses, which would otherwise be incurred to construct new or more
elaborate WWT facilities using traditional technologies.

However, being constrained to a finite wastewater capacity, this analysis also considers
implications for national scalability for this concept with respect to total biomass or biofuel
production potential.

Two scenarios were considered for potential integration points into a typical wastewater
treatment facility configuration: one based on replacing the majority of standard WWT
operations to perform complete “bulk” wastewater treatment, and a second based on adding
new/additional tertiary treatment capabilities to target more comprehensive removal specifically
of nitrogen and phosphorus (N/P), including to more stringent levels attributed to recent
regulatory requirements. The majority of cases evaluated under both scenarios found highly
favorable economics with MBSPs generally under $100/ton and many even calculated as
negative MBSPs, i.e., the revenues generated for treating wastewater (calculated in this study as
a coproduct credit) outweigh all biomass production costs such that the facility is still profitable
without any revenue required from selling the biomass. The tertiary treatment approach was seen
to generate more significant revenues and lower potential MBSPs than complete WWT. In
contrast, this may be compared to traditional algae farm model targets at $488/ton, reflecting
open pond algae farms dedicated to biomass production with external purchase of nutrients, CO2,
and water sourcing.

However, particularly when focused on higher protein (higher N/P) compositions, which are
likely more realistic for this particular context focused on continuous treatment of wastewater
nutrients, the lower amount of biomass produced per ton of N/P available after considering
national wastewater production volumes translates to an upper limit on national scalability

v
potential. Based on existing and projected future wastewater capacity flows, base case estimates
indicate roughly 4–6 million (MM) tons/yr of algal biomass production potential for the
“complete” WWT case reducing to roughly 2 MM tons/yr for the tertiary treatment case. This
would translate to roughly 300–500 MM gallon gasoline equivalent (GGE)/yr or 100–200 MM
GGE/yr total biofuel capacity for the two respective scenarios. Accordingly, this preliminary
assessment finds agreement with other claims around the economic incentives for algal WWT as
a sensible approach to take in the near-term at smaller scales, thus providing in-roads to begin
developing algae industry capacity and experience; but may not necessarily achieve by itself a
broader capacity for algae to provide more substantial contributions to national biomass/biofuel
volumes on the order of 5 billion GGE/yr as may be achievable when removing wastewater
availability constraints, relative to total U.S. transportation fuel consumption around 230 billion
GGE/yr. However, additional waste resources with comparable or larger volumes, such as
livestock waste, may offer additional opportunities for similar algal remediation approaches with
further environmental benefits.

vi
Contents
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................... iii
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Model Inputs ................................................................................................................................................ 2
Valorization Method 1: Complete WWTP ............................................................................................. 3
Valorization Method 2: Tertiary Treatment (N/P Removal) .................................................................. 6
Results and Discussion............................................................................................................................ 10
Valorization Method 1: Complete WWTP ........................................................................................... 10
Valorization Method 2: Tertiary Treatment (N/P Removal) ................................................................ 12
Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................................................ 15
References ................................................................................................................................................. 17

vii
Introduction
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has spent the last several years evaluating
algae production and conversion technologies to support research targets for economical algal
fuel production. These techno-economic analyses (TEAs) consider both algae cultivation and
dewatering (known as the algae “farm” design) and conversion through combined algal
processing (CAP) with off-shoots and sensitivities of these analyses considering new concepts or
alternative processing approaches [1-3]. In 2016, NREL published a design report on algae
biomass cultivation in open ponds and downstream dewatering [2]. The design stipulated a single
algae strain cultivated year-round autotrophically. Following this effort, NREL worked
congruently with Argonne National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on
harmonizing updated process model assumptions [3]. Specifically, resource analysis and strain
rotation with algae that can grow in fresh or saline/brackish water were modeled, while
maintaining standard cultivation assumptions around sourcing nutrient inputs from external
fertilizers at added cost. As an alternative to traditional algal cultivation on fresh or saline water
with supplemental carbon dioxide (CO2) and nutrient supply, cultivation using wastewater is
another possibility but was not included in the prior harmonization work scope.

Within the United States, there are over 15,000 publicly owned wastewater treatment (WWT)
facilities that collectively treat over 34.5 billion gallons of water per day [4]. Wastewater
contains nutrients such as carbon, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) that can be utilized for algae
production to reduce external purchase costs for those components, while providing a service to
remove those contaminants from the wastewater, which must otherwise be treated through
alternative methods (in some cases at significant expense, depending on the regulation for treated
water discharge limits) [5,6]. In microalgae-based wastewater treatment, the algae produce
dissolved oxygen, which aids in the oxidation of waste organic matter, while assimilating N and
P. Thus, by growing algae in wastewater, treatment can be accomplished concurrently with
biomass production. Algae wastewater treatment plants using deep ponds are common (of the
above-cited 15,000 WWT facilities, approximately half include ponds supporting microalgae),
but they generally are not designed to produce a harvestable algae biomass. In light of these
considerations, a growing number of industry entities have begun to develop systems for
intensive algal wastewater remediation, claiming significant economic incentives for enabling
cost-competitive processes [5,6]. Given such recent industry expansion into this area, we desired
to better understand the quantitative drivers and differences from a TEA standpoint around algal
wastewater cultivation relative to traditional TEA farm models. The present analysis provides a
preliminary TEA assessment, as well as resource potential extrapolations, for algae cultivation to
treat wastewater across two separate integration points tying into typical wastewater treatment
operations. The TEA is limited here to open pond systems for algal cultivation to provide
preliminary proof-of-concept, but closed photobioreactor (PBR) systems are also applicable and
are being developed commercially for this application, as they also may enable unlocking
opportunities for algal cultivation in more northern climates where cold temperatures and low
wintertime solar irradiance would limit deployment of open pond systems.

1
Model Inputs
The following discussion summarizes a general overview of a wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) with considerations of streams within the process where algae production could be
integrated, as evaluated across two methods for valorizing wastewater remediation. With over
15,000 WWTPs in the United States, facility designs can be highly individualized and unique
depending on several factors such as location, feed streams, and final water quality regulations
[4]. In general, Figure 1 shows a block-flow diagram for the most commonly encountered
process steps within an activated sludge WWTP. Raw municipal wastewater from multiple point
sources combine and enter the facility where a series of screens, grit chambers, and finally
grinders produce an untreated wastewater with a high percentage of suspended solids. This
material enters a primary clarifier. Settled solids from primary clarification then flow to a
thickening unit to increase the solids concentration as a sludge stream. The supernatant from the
thickener returns to the primary clarification unit while the sludge flows to an anaerobic
digestion (AD) unit to reduce the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD); the AD step is outside the
analysis boundaries of this effort, focused on options to handle clarified effluent water either
following primary or secondary clarification. Final AD sludge is trucked off-site for disposal
while the AD centrate returns to the primary clarification unit. The liquid stream from the
primary clarification (stream 6 in Figure 1) contains additional carbon and nutrients, which are
absorbed and oxidized by activated sludge in an aerobic basin. The product from the aerobic
bioreactor, activated sludge, is made up of microbial biomass. The produced solids from the
activated sludge step settle in a secondary clarification unit and a fraction of the activated sludge
returns to the aerobic basin while the remainder flows to the sludge thickening unit. The liquid
effluent from the secondary clarification unit may meet water quality regulations, but if not, a
series of tertiary treatment steps may be implemented to further treat the water to limits set by
local governing regulations.

2. Untreated Aeration
Preliminary Wastewater Tanks
Treatment 3. 6. (Activated 7.
Primary Secondary
1. Raw (screens, Clarification Sludge
Aerobic Clarification
Sewage grit
chambers, Basin)
etc.)
8. Activated
11. Dewatering 4. Primary Sludge Return
Effluent Settled 5. Supernatant 13. Effluent
Stream
12. AD Sludge Sludge
Disposal Dewatering

Tertiary
9. Secondary Treatment
Anaerobic 10. Sludge Sludge Settled
Digestion to AD Thickening Stream
14. Disinfection
 Clean Water

Figure 1. Typical block-flow diagram of an activated sludge wastewater treatment facility

2
Algae cultivation for WWT holds the potential to both treat water as well as produce algal
biomass, which may be viewed as a value-added coproduct from the perspective of the WWT
facility. (However, given the presence of numerous possible wastewater contaminants likely to
be present along with the harvested algae, downstream utilization options for the biomass would
likely be limited to fuel/energy combustion, AD, or other routes through biomass destruction).
There are several possible integration points within the WWTP where streams can be diverted to
a co-located algae cultivation facility. For one, instead of recycling the high-nutrient AD
centrate, it could instead serve as the main feed stream to the algae facility. AD centrate is often
roughly 1% of the incoming untreated wastewater flow rate [7]. In this approach, the algae
facility does not replace any WWT process steps, but reduces the overall nutrient removal load
on the WWTP. Although this could be an option for consideration, the cost benefits for a WWTP
are not directly intuitive for this approach. A WWTP would need to be consulted to inform the
design and how the operating expenditures and circulated nutrient loadings would change due to
the AD centrate stream diversion. Due to its small flow rate of the total WWTP and difficulty in
establishing a direct cost benefit, we did not consider AD centrate as a main scenario feeding
into the algae cultivation system. A second option is to replace the majority of the WWTP
configuration with an algae cultivation process that can grow mixotrophically (on both organic
carbon in the wastewater and supplemental inorganic CO2). After preliminary treatment and
primary clarification in Figure 1, the algae farm could directly utilize the clarified effluent. This
would replace the need for the aeration tanks, secondary clarification, AD, and tertiary treatment.
In this method (termed here as “complete WWTP replacement” and described in greater detail
below), the treated water produced from the algae facility would be sold as a coproduct to
customers. Under this scenario, a polyculture would be cultivated consisting of both algae and
other heterotrophic biomass, with the focus of discussion here—regarding “biomass”
productivity, national “biomass” resource potential, etc.—intended to focus on the algae portion
of the cultivated biomass. Finally, the algae facility could also use the effluent from secondary
clarification and replace the need for other expensive nutrient removal units in situations where
further wastewater remediation is required (for example, in meeting removal of N and P under
more stringent discharge limits being implemented currently) [5]. This second valorization
option, tertiary treatment, is also considered and described in more detail below.

Valorization Method 1: Complete WWTP

Figure 2 depicts the proposed changes to a WWTP for on-site algae cultivation that utilizes the
primary effluent stream. The algae cultivation ponds are assumed sufficient to treat the
wastewater for both BOD and nutrients to requisite levels in the discharge water (this requires
research/operational data to validate). In this WWTP process, preliminary treatment (screens, grit
removal, and grinders) and primary clarification steps are maintained. The sludge from primary
clarification is then dewatered and sent for disposal while the primary effluent is routed to the
open ponds for algae cultivation. Because the valorization method applied in this scenario
assumes that the entire wastewater facility is replaced with an algae farm (with the exception of
preliminary treatment/primary clarification), the AD unit is also assumed to be removed, as a
redesign of municipal wastewater solids AD (configured to be integrated with clarified effluent
algae treatment) is outside the scope of this work.

Similar to previous algae designs [2], cultivation productivity is set at a target annual average of
25 g/m2/day (ash-free dry weight [AFDW] algal biomass). However, in previous design targets
for traditional algae farms, the seasonal variability was assumed to range from 3:1 between
winter versus summer seasons. This range may reasonably be expected to be lower for a
mixotrophic system, which utilizes organic carbon in the wastewater (thus diminishing an

3
exclusive reliance on photosynthesis to cultivate algae, which becomes more limited in winter
months with less solar irradiance). Moreover, recent state-of-technology data for traditional
cultivation has demonstrated a lower seasonal variability of 2:1 [8], and therefore we used this
2:1 basis as an important parameter in setting the algae farm footprint for treating a constant flow
of wastewater (assumed to be unchanged throughout the year). In previous designs, the algae
facility size was fixed at 5,000 cultivation acres. Instead, here the flow of the WWTP is fixed
with the algae facility size varying to use all nutrients (N and P) during the lowest productivity
season for a set algae composition (shown at the bottom of Figures 6 and 7); however, in practice
it is noted that it would be more cost-effective to only target nutrient uptake to the point of
reaching discharge permits.

Two algae compositions are evaluated as reflected in Table 1, namely high-protein and high-
carbohydrate Scenedesmus (HPSD and HCSD), to understand tradeoffs in overall biomass
nutrient demands/uptake potential and their effect on algae farm size and economics [2].
However, in the context of this analysis, the HCSD basis is not likely to be realistic, as such an
improved compositional quality is not typically consistent with polycultures of algal and
bacterial/other biomass grown mixotrophically under high chemical oxygen demand
(COD)/BOD. Even for the tertiary treatment scenario, which at least would be more exclusively
algal biomass after organics are removed, achieving an HCSD-type composition would require
longer hydraulic residence times and some degree of nutrient deprivation, which is counter to the
objective of maximizing nutrient mitigation and water throughputs. Thus, the HPSD composition
is generally a more relevant basis for both valorization methods, and although it does not fit well
into NREL’s prior CAP designs (focused on carbohydrates and lipids), it is pertinent to other
conversion methods as well as future NREL work moving forward that will seek to focus more
on higher-protein conversion options. Biomass is harvested at a constant density of 0.5 g/L, set
by varying the removal rate of treated water (normally referred to as “blowdown” in traditional
algae farm models seeking to minimize water footprint) to meet this parameter. Consistent with
prior models, harvested biomass is dewatered through a three-stage process via gravity settling, a
membrane filtration unit, and a centrifuge to reach a concentration of 20 wt% solids [2,9].

Preliminary
Treatment Untreated Primary Primary Algae
Settling
Raw (screens, Wastewater Clarification Effluent Cultivation
Tanks
Sewage grit in Open
chambers, Ponds
etc.)
Recycle
Water Algae
Primary
Settled Supernatant (Minimized)
Stream

Clean
Water
Membrane and
Centrifuge
Sludge Dewatering
Wet Sludge Flotation
Disposal Thickening
Algae (20 wt%)

Figure 2. Block-flow diagram of WWT with algae cultivation (complete WWTP system)

4
 Table 1. Algae Composition for High-Protein Scenedesmus (HPSD) and
High-Carbohydrate Scenedesmus (HCSD) Scenarios Evaluated Here [2]

Wt% composition
HPSD HCSD
(AFDW basis)
C 52.2 54.0
H 7.5 8.2
N 8.8 1.8
O 30.4 35.5
S 0.0 0.2
P 1.03 0.22
Total 100.0 100.0

The incoming wastewater stream is assumed at a base case flow of 10 million gallons per day
(MGD) with N content of 36 mg/L, P content of 8 mg/L, and a COD of 750 mg/L (shown in
Table 2) based on average data of WWT facilities greater than 1 MGD in the United States [10].
From this basis, the waste sludge disposal stream was estimated at 0.1 MGD (1% of raw
incoming wastewater flow), with associated COD, N, and P loadings shown in Table 2 based on
a literature search for typical waste sludge characteristics [11-14,7,15-17]. The primary effluent
flow and nutrient loadings were then calculated based on mass balance between the wastewater
feed and waste sludge disposal streams. Given a fixed flowrate and nutrient concentration in the
resulting primary effluent stream (i.e., g/day of N and P available), the algae farm footprint size
was then determined based on the targeted 25 g/m2/day cultivation productivity coupled with the
biomass elemental composition in Table 1 (i.e., g/m2/day uptake rate demands for C, N, and P)
based on the lowest-productivity winter basis, with supplemental nutrients supplied at additional
cost for higher-productivity periods. Without more detailed information around the balance
between autotrophic versus heterotrophic modes of growth (utilizing inorganic CO2 versus
organic wastewater carbon respectively), this preliminary assessment assumed that half of the
requisite carbon is supplied through wastewater COD, thereby reducing purchased CO2 costs by
50% relative to a purely photo-autotrophic cultivation model. (A sensitivity analysis was run to
evaluate the impacts around this assumption, as presented later.)

All algae farm capital costs were maintained consistently with those presented in the algae farm
design report (on a per-acre cultivation basis), with labor costs adjusted based on reasonable
expectations of how each FTE position (number of employees) may change for differing algae
farm footprint sizes relative to the original baseline at 5,000 acres of production cultivation area
[2]. Finally, to valorize the treated wastewater (in this case viewing the wastewater as a
coproduct and solving for biomass cost rather than vice-versa), a value was assigned at either
$2,400/million gallons (MG) or $4,500/MG, as two possible scenarios to bracket the cost
potential based on a wastewater industry report [18]. These cost values represent typical industry
data for traditional WWTP operations and maintenance (O&M) costs and for fully-burdened
facility treatment costs including capital (passed to a consumer’s service charges), respectively,
indicating the “avoided expenses” for treating wastewater via algal cultivation rather than
building and operating a new traditional WWTP [18]. Based on discussions with expert
consultants in this field, MicroBio Engineering, this approach is also consistent with how they
approach algal wastewater TEA [19].

5
 Table 2. Flow Rates, Nutrient, and Carbon Content of Pertinent
Wastewater Streams Assumed in Present Work
Waste Sludge Primary Effluent
Raw Sewage
Stream [11] [12] [13] (calculated by
[10] [14] [7] [15] [16] [17] difference)
Flow (MGD) 10 0.1 9.9
Total P (mg/L) 8 66 7
Total N (mg/L) 36 418 32
COD (mg/L) 750 5655 700

Valorization Method 2: Tertiary Treatment (N/P Removal)

In the second integration point considered here for algal WWT, the WWTP maintains all
standard operations leading to the secondary clarification step, with algal cultivation taking place
subsequently utilizing the secondary clarification effluent. Again, while the characteristics of
secondary effluent streams vary according to each respective WWT facility, the present work
assumes a concentration of 0.9 mg/L total P and 5.8 mg/L total N (deduced from information
published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] in 2015) [10], relative to recent
regulations that, in some instances, have become more stringent, down to discharge limits to less
than 1 mg/L (limits for P are lower than those for N) [10,5]. Based on discussions with private
industry stakeholders, the incremental costs for treating water down to such stringent levels
through traditional methods can be quite costly, with one comment from other collaborators
(Neochloris and University of Illinois) noting over an order of magnitude higher costs per kg of
N and P removed for such “deep” removal relative to standard (“bulk”) WWT occurring
upstream of the secondary clarification step [20]. Again, this challenge for the WWT industry
thus represents an opportunity for algae, if algal cultivation systems could be designed and
operated to achieve maximum N/P nutrient uptake while not contributing to toxins or
extracellular dissolved organic carbon. As shown in Figure 3, under this scenario, the secondary
clarification effluent is routed to algal cultivation and harvesting/dewatering, with the treated
clean water effluent valued on a basis per-pound of N and P removed as discussed below.

6
 Untreated Aeration
Preliminary Wastewater Tanks
Treatment Primary (Activated
Sludge Secondary
Raw (screens, Clarification
Aerobic Clarification
Sewage grit
chambers, Basin)
etc.)
Activated
Primary Sludge Return
Dewatering
Effluent Settled Supernatant Effluent
Stream
AD Sludge Sludge
Disposal Dewatering
Algae
Secondary Cultivation in
Anaerobic Sludge Sludge Settled Open Ponds
Digestion to AD Thickening Stream

Settling
Clean Tanks
Water
Membrane and
Centrifuge Algae
Algae
(20 wt%) Dewatering

Figure 3. Block-flow diagram of WWT with algae cultivation (tertiary treatment for N/P removal)

Again, in this scenario, algal cultivation productivity was set at the targeted 25 g/m2/day annual
average (AFDW) and 2:1 seasonal variability in the base case, evaluated across both HPSD and
HCSD elemental compositions and associated nutrient demands, with the farm footprint size set
based on wintertime production rates matching to all available N/P flows from secondary
treatment [8,2]. Also, similar to the complete WWT case, this approach considers two levels for
valorizing residual N/P removal. Table 3 provides the N and P levels as may be encountered in
raw sewage, and the nutrients assumed here to be remaining in the secondary effluent stream
after most of the carbon and nutrients have been treated by upstream WWT operations. Unlike
the values in Table 2, the secondary effluent is assumed to have no measurable COD by that
point and the remaining total P is a magnitude lower than the primary effluent stream, reducing
from 7 mg/L to 0.9 mg/L [10]. The secondary effluent also contains 5.8 mg/L of total N
compared to 32 mg/L in the primary effluent [10]. Although these secondary N/P levels were
deduced from the above-cited EPA reference, in practice these values may be lower than those
typically encountered for secondary effluent today (further discussions with industry
collaborators following completion of this report have indicated higher levels more typically in a
range of 15–25 mg/L total N and 3–5 mg/L total P, though such values would further improve
economics for N/P mitigation if starting at such higher levels for tertiary treatment compared to
those presented here). With a smaller flow of nutrients to uptake, the farm footprint for this
scenario is smaller than the footprint calculated for the complete WWT scenario.

7
 Table 3. Flow Rates and Nutrient Content of Pertinent
Wastewater Streams Assumed in Present Work (Deduced from [10])

Raw Sewage Secondary Effluent

Flow (MGD) 10 9.9
Total P (mg/L) 8.1 0.9
Total N (mg/L) 35.8 5.8
COD (mg/L) 750 0

The valorization method under this scenario reflects mitigation costs that are associated with
traditional technologies to reduce N and P, with this study targeting maximal algal uptake
achieving near-complete removal to less than 0.1 mg/L in the discharge water. In a report by the
EPA, several hundred WWT facilities in the United States were surveyed for N and P influent
levels, effluent levels, and the corresponding capital and operating costs to reach those effluent
levels. Figure 4 shows the results of that survey calculated based on the $/lb cost to remove N
and P and the associated concentration for N and P in the effluent. On average, the cost to
remove N and P is $4.50/lb (2012$) down until a concentration of ~1 mg/L [10]. Beyond this
threshold, removing more N and P cannot be done with conventional methods and requires a
tertiary treatment at much higher cost. For example, to remove P from 1 mg/L to 0.1 mg/L a
process using activated ferrous metals is employed [5]. Another report examines the capital and
operating costs for WWTPs that reduce N and P levels to 0.1 mg/L. Of the 80 WWTP surveyed,
26 have a capacity greater than 0.5 MGD and are shown in Figure 5 [5]. Although more scattered
in the cost of removal because of the various methods employed, the average cost of removal is
$67.4/lb of N or P (2012$), which is over 10 times greater than the less stringent nutrient
removal methods to higher concentrations, reaching up to $100/lb or more of N or P removal.

In this assessment, the secondary effluent containing 0.9 mg/L of P and 5.8 mg/L of N is
integrated with the algae farm such that all nutrients are assumed to be completely removed by
the algae along with supplementary nutrients fed to the process during higher-productivity
seasons beyond winter. No carbon is assumed to be present, so all carbon for algal growth in this
case is derived from supplemental CO2. Based on the above information, reducing the secondary
effluent N levels from 5.8 mg/L to 1 mg/L first yields a coproduct credit of $4.50/lb for N
removed (2012$) in the present TEA estimates [10]. Further reducing the remaining N and P (1
mg/L and 0.9 mg/L, respectively) to 0.1 mg/L yields an additional coproduct credit of $67.40/lb
for N or P removed, with a “high” coproduct value of $100/lb for N or P removed also
alternatively considered [5]. While this study lumps N and P treatment credits together based on
somewhat sparse availability of the data, in reality, feedback from industry has indicated that P
removal is significantly more costly (and thus valuable for algae treatment) than N removal.
Future work will revisit the assumptions made in this assessment regarding influent/effluent
concentrations as well as individual N/P treatment credits in further granularity.

8
 $25

$/lb N & P Removed (2012$)

$20

$15

$10

$5

$-
0 5
5000 10
10000 15
15000 20
20000
Milligrams/liter for N + P in Effluent

Figure 4. Industry survey costs for reducing high concentration

N and P to ~1 mg/L [10]

$250
$/lb P or N removed (2012$)

$200

$150

$100

$50

$-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
WWT (MGD)

Figure 5. Industry survey costs for reducing N and P concentration

from 1 mg/L to 0.1 mg/L vs. WWT size [5]

9
Results and Discussion
Valorization Method 1: Complete WWTP
The resulting minimum biomass selling price (MBSP) for the first case (complete WWT
replacement) is shown in Figure 6, reflecting eight total scenarios investigated for this approach.
Relative to “traditional” algal cultivation using local water resources and externally purchased N,
P, and CO2 at a targeted MBSP of $488/ton AFDW based on the HCSD target biomass
composition, the MBSP for complete algal WWT would reduce to $326/ton or $237/ton for
WWT credits of $2,400/MG and $4,500/MG respectively (all results are in 2016 dollars with a
21% tax rate). As discussed above, recognizing that an HCSD-type composition would likely be
difficult to achieve in this context when algae is continuously produced to uptake a continuous
feed of nutrients, a high-nitrogen HPSD biomass compositional basis would likely be more
relevant for this situation. In that case, MBSPs would drop substantially to $108/ton for the
$2,400/MG credit, or to negative $311/ton for the $4,500/MG credit. This is because the water
treatment credits are the same (in all cases treating 10 MGD at a fixed treatment credit), but
require substantially less cultivation area and associated expenses to consume all nutrients;
however, they also produce substantially less biomass at nearly fivefold higher N and P content
for HPSD versus HCSD (see Table 1).

Given the finding of significantly lower biomass costs for HPSD than HCSD compositions (as
well as the fact that HPSD is more realistic for this particular context as noted above), additional
scenarios were also investigated for the “complete WWT” approach, but were limited only to
HPSD compositions. Namely, as shown in the right half of Figure 6, increasing the facility scale
from treating 10 MGD to 50 MGD (representing the largest wastewater facilities in the United
States, which account for less than 3% of total WWT facilities) would lead to marginal further
cost savings on the order of roughly $80/ton, at MBSPs of $23/ton or negative $396/ton for the
$2,400/MG and $4,500/MG credits, respectively. Thus, co-locating algae farms with WWTPs
does not necessarily require being limited to only very large WWTP scales. Additionally,
reducing the annual variability in cultivation productivity from the 2:1 base case down to a
hypothetical 1:1 basis (eliminating seasonal variability completely) translates to dramatic MBSP
savings, reducing the MBSP from $23/ton to negative $288/ton for the $2,400/MG WWT credit
basis, or from negative $396/ton to negative $976/ton for the $4,500/MG WWT credit basis.
This is attributed to the elimination of all equipment over-design, plus full utilization of the
wastewater nutrients in all seasons without the need for adding further supplemental nutrients at
additional cost when seasonal biomass productivity increases. As a sensitivity to the assumed
50% CO2 reduction relative to fully autotrophic growth (with the remaining 50% of required
carbon assumed to be met through the organic COD content in the wastewater influent), the
MBSP for all cases would increase universally by $50/ton if all carbon demands were met
through 100% purchased CO2.

While these scenarios for algal WWT offer clear TEA cost advantages relative to traditional
algal cultivation, the other important factor to understand is the national scalability for this
approach, being limited to co-location with finite WWT facilities. The right axis in Figure 6
presents the algal biomass yield per volume of wastewater treated, based on the underlying N
and P content (demand) of the biomass. The figure highlights that, although the HPSD
composition cases offer significant cost advantages over the HCSD composition, the HPSD
biomass yield is nearly fivefold lower per volume of wastewater treated (tied to the nearly
fivefold higher N and P content in the biomass). The bottom table of Figure 6 presents resulting

10
estimates for national-scale algal biomass and biofuel potential tied to each individual scenario,
with the potential shown for both a “base case” and “high case.” The valorization method taken
in the TEA for the complete WWT scenario implicitly assumes that an algae farm is built instead
of a traditional WWT facility (based on the $/MM gallon avoided costs attributed to traditional
WWT facilities as noted above), and thus would not be fair to consider the entire existing
national WWT capacity of 34.5 billion gallons per day (BGD) for purposes of calculating the
associated algal biomass production potential (as this would assume that new algae WWT farms
are built to handle wastewater already being treated by existing WWT facilities while also
claiming the cost credit for avoided WWT construction/operation expenses). Instead, such a
valorization approach is more appropriately applied for future resource potential where there
would be a binary option to build a new traditional WWT facility or a new algae farm.

As a preliminary estimate, new future incremental wastewater capacity was estimated by scaling
the existing capacity (34.5 BGD) by the projected U.S. population growth through 2050 (398
versus 321 million people, or a 25% population growth relative to 2015) as a reasonable proxy
for generated wastewater volumes. A 25% growth over 34.5 BGD translates to 8.6 BGD of
incremental new wastewater volume that must be treated in excess of existing WWT facility
infrastructure. For “base case” biomass potential calculations, we assume that 50% of this 8.6
BGD will be available to be treated nationally via algal cultivation, between location constraints
imposed by latitude (with more northern latitudes less likely to be suitable for algal cultivation
particularly in open ponds) and by land availability (recognizing WWT facilities are typically
located in densely populated areas where large amounts of unoccupied land are not always
available as required for algae farms). With this basis, the resulting national biomass potential
would be roughly 29 MM tons/yr for the HCSD cases shown in Figure 6, dropping to 6 MM
tons/yr for the HPSD cases and then further to 4 MM tons/yr for HPSD on a 1:1 seasonal
variability (the lowest MBSP cases). At a targeted 84 GGE/ton fuel yield consistent with
achievable CAP processing targets, this would translate to 2.5 billion GGE/yr (BGGE/yr) for the
HCSD cases, reducing to 0.5 BGGE/yr for HPSD or to 0.3 BGGE/yr for HPSD at the 1:1
seasonal variability basis. Yields are lower for the 1:1 seasonality case than for 2:1 because the
only algae cultivated in the former case is that which can be grown on wastewater nutrients,
while 2:1 seasonality produces more algae during higher-productivity seasons (at the expense of
supplemental fertilizer nutrient purchase). While this could translate to a reasonable “base case”
biomass/biofuel potential for the HCSD composition basis, this potential is considerably smaller
for a more realistic HPSD composition in this context.

Alternatively, the “high case” potential calculations shown in Figure 6 assume the total available
wastewater volume is doubled (back to 8.6 BGD), which may for example reflect a 25%
replacement of the existing (aging) 34.5-BGD WWT facility capacity by 2050, again half of
which could be assumed to be available for algal cultivation (i.e., an additional 4.3 BGD). Under
this scenario, the national biomass/biofuel potential output would be twice the base case, up to
roughly 5 BGGE/yr fuels for HCSD, 1 BGGE/yr for HPSD, or 0.6 BGGE/yr for HPSD at a 1:1
cultivation variability. However, it should be noted that this likely errs on the optimistic/high
side as none of these resource calculations consider other details such as supplemental CO2
availability or potential financial incentives to sell algal biomass at a price higher than the
MBSP. As an additional sensitivity case, if the fourth scenario in Figure 6 (HPSD, 10 MGD,
$4,500/MG credit) increased the basis farm size from 470 to 1,000 acres, thereby requiring
import of supplemental fertilizer nutrients during all seasons (including winter), the MBSP
would increase to $163/ton (rather than negative $311/ton) but yield would also increase
significantly to 13.2 MM tons/yr in the base case (roughly 1.1 BGGE/yr).

11
 $600 30
Traditional cultivation - algae farm design case = $488/ton (2016$)

Algae Yield per Million Gallons Wastewater Treated

$400 20
$326
$237
$200 $108 10
$23

(ton/MM gal Wastewater)

MBSP ($/ton algae AFDW, 2016$)

$0 0

($200) -10

($400) ($311) ($288) -20

($396)
($600) -30

($800) -40

($1,000) -50
($976)

($1,200) -60
10 MGD, 10 MGD, 10 MGD, 10 MGD, 50 MGD, 50 MGD, 50 MGD, 50 MGD,
$2400/MG, $2400/MG, $4500/MG, $4500/MG, $2400/MG, $2400/MG, $4500/MG, $4500/MG,
HCSD HPSD HCSD HPSD HPSD, 2:1 HPSD, 1:1 HPSD, 2:1 HPSD, 1:1

Algal biomass potential, 29.2 6.2 29.2 6.2 6.2 3.8 6.2 3.8
MM tons/yr (base)
Algal biofuel potential, 2.5 0.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3
BGGE/yr (base)
Algal biomass potential, 58.4 12.4 58.4 12.4 12.4 7.5 12.4 7.5
MM tons/yr (high)
Algal biofuel potential, 4.9 1.0 4.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.6
BGGE/yr (high)
Algae farm size (acres) 2150 470 2150 470 2353 1473 2353 1473

The blue bars represent the MBSP calculated using our standard TEA methodologies (left axis), while the orange
dots represent the biomass yield per million gallons of wastewater processed (right axis). Lower table provides the
algal biomass and biofuel potential for a base and “high” case corresponding to each scenario in the plot.
Figure 6. TEA results and national resource potential for scenarios
considered under Case 1: Complete WWT

Valorization Method 2: Tertiary Treatment (N/P Removal)

For the second WWT integration approach (tertiary treatment), 10 total scenarios were examined
with results shown in Figure 7. Compared to the “traditional” cultivation farm model at a
targeted $488/ton MBSP for an HCSD-equivalent algae composition, assuming the same HCSD
basis and N/P remediation credits of $67/lb (for the “maximum” removal levels between 1 mg/L
to 0.1 mg/L), the MBSP is reduced by $389/ton down to $99/ton. For the upper N/P remediation
credit value of $100/lb, the MBSP would become highly profitable at negative $112/ton.
However, as discussed above, in this context of continuous remediation of influent N and P, the
HCSD composition basis is likely less realistic, whereas the HPSD composition would support
higher pond turnover and continuous nutrient uptake associated with a higher N and P content in
the biomass (although at least in the tertiary treatment scenario the cultivated biomass would
largely be algae, and thus have a better chance of approaching an HCSD-type composition).

12
Again like the prior case, when moving from HCSD to HPSD compositions, there is a large
benefit in reduced facility footprint and associated costs needed to consume the nutrients (albeit
at lower biomass yield). For example, the HPSD composition at $67/lb N and P and $100/lb N
and P credits translates to MBSPs of negative $1,599/ton and negative $3,013/ton, respectively.

Consistent with the cases examined by the complete WWT scenario, the seasonal variability of
cultivation productivity was evaluated down to a 1:1 basis (no variability). However, as the
secondary effluent stream does not contain accessible carbon for mixotrophic growth, which
somewhat helps to offset seasonal swings for purely autotrophic growth (assuming a larger
driver behind seasonal variability comes from photosynthetic irradiance than from temperature
swings), eliminating seasonal variability completely is unlikely to be achieved unless a more
controlled closed PBR system is employed, possibly including some degree of artificial
illumination, similar to designs being pursued in industry. Still, under the 1:1 variability basis for
HPSD, the MBSP could hypothetically be reduced to negative $1,963/ton and negative
$3,594/ton, for the $67/lb and $100/lb N and P credit cases, respectively. Such a large cost offset
could potentially justify the added expense for such a controlled PBR design. Finally, increasing
the scale to accommodate larger 50 MGD WWT capacities would again lead to additional MBSP
reductions, with the cases evaluated in Figure 7 ranging from negative $2,348/ton to negative
$4,433/ton. In addition to the eight cases above, we also examined several cases where the
harvest density was set at 0.5 g/L through algae recycle. When a fraction of the stream after
harvesting and concentration is recycled back to the ponds, the net harvested biomass
concentration is increased but more algae is also lost to blowdown. Under that approach, the
higher harvest density design still proved highly profitable (negative MBSPs, although slightly
less negative than the cases shown in Figure 7) for all HPSD scenarios.

In addition to the cost and yield results, the corresponding table at the bottom of Figure 7 again
provides the estimated algae biomass potential (MM tons/yr) and biofuel potential (BGGE/yr)
for a base and target case. For this scenario, the base case potential assumes that 50% of the
existing 34.5-BGD WWT capacity in the United States could be integrated with tertiary algal
treatment. Unlike the complete WWT approach, the tertiary treatment approach is not necessarily
constrained only to new incremental WWT capacity (or replacement of retired WWT facilities),
as it largely represents a new opportunity to add further WWT capabilities onto the end of
existing operations (assuming that the majority are not yet otherwise configured to meet more
stringent N/P discharge limits), thus the resource potential may more directly tap into current
wastewater volumes. However, similar to the arguments discussed for the complete WWT case,
the “base case” here limits the national resource potential to 50% of the full 34.5-BGD capacity,
to provide allowances for location constraints (latitude, available land around population centers,
etc.) as well as acknowledging that some WWT facilities will already be able to meet stringent
discharge levels without a need for tertiary treatment or with existing equipment already in place.
For a “high case,” an additional 50% of projected future incremental additional capacity is added
to the base case using the same population growth figure discussed in the complete WWT
scenario (roughly 25% growth by 2050), assuming that 50% of total future wastewater capacity
may leverage tertiary algal treatment. In all the HCSD cases, the biomass potential is estimated
at 12.3 up to 15.3 MM tons/yr, translating to a biofuel potential of 1.0 BGGE/yr and 1.3
BGGE/yr for the base and high cases, respectively. For all HPSD cases with a 2:1 seasonality
ratio, the base and high biomass potential is 1.8 and 2.3 MM tons/yr, respectively, translating to
a fuel potential of 0.15 to 0.19 BGGE/yr. Finally, for the HPSD cases with a 1:1 seasonality
ratio, the biomass potential drops to 1.6 and 2.0 MM tons/yr for the base and high cases,
respectively, translating to a fuel potential of roughly 0.13 to 0.17 BGGE/yr.

13
 Finally, it is also worth noting that although national-scale algal biomass/biofuel potential may
be somewhat limited when coupled to municipal wastewater capacity as projected here, similar
opportunities for algae may exist for other waste resources of comparable or larger volumes. For
example, animal manure accounts for over fortyfold higher annual waste production by dry mass
compared to human sewage generation in the United States [21], accounting for significant
groundwater contamination and runoff issues. If such material could first be treated to reduce
organic content, e.g., via anaerobic digestion, hydrothermal liquefaction, or other means, the
resulting aqueous streams containing high N/P levels could be processed through similar algal
remediation approaches as those considered here for municipal wastewater [20], thereby
unlocking substantially higher algal biomass production potential while addressing key
environmental challenges in a more sustainable way.
$2,000 4

Algae Yield per Million Gallons Wastewater Treated

$1,000 2
Traditional cultivation - algae farm design case = $488/ton (2016$)
MBSP ($/ton algae AFDW, 2016$)

$99
$0 0

(ton/MM gal Wastewater)

($112)

($1,000) -2

($2,000) ($1,599) -4
($1,963)
($2,348)
($3,000) ($2,802) -6
($3,013)

($4,000) ($3,594) -8
($3,757)

($4,433)
($5,000) -10
10 MGD, 10 MGD, 10 MGD, 10 MGD, 10 MGD, 10 MGD, 50 MGD, 50 MGD, 50 MGD, 50 MGD,
$67/lb, $100/lb, $67/lb, $67/lb, $100/lb, $100/lb, $67/lb, $67/lb, $100/lb, $100/lb,
HCSD, HCSD, HPSD, HPSD, HPSD, HPSD, HPSD, HPSD, HPSD, HPSD,
2:1 2:1 2:1 1:1 2:1 1:1 2:1 1:1 2:1 1:1
Algal biomass potential,
12.3 12.3 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.6
MM tons/yr (base)
Algal biofuel potential,
1.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1
BGGE/yr (base)
Algal biomass potential,
15.3 15.3 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.0
MM tons/yr (high)
Algal biofuel potential,
1.3 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
BGGE/yr (high)
Algae farm size (acres) 234 234 51 47 51 47 256 234 256 234

The blue bars represent the MBSP calculated using our standard TEA methodologies (left axis), while the orange
dots represent the biomass yield per million gallons of wastewater processed (right axis). Lower table provides the
algal biomass and biofuel potential for a base and “high” case corresponding to each scenario in the plot.
Figure 7. TEA results and national resource potential for scenarios
considered under Case 2: Tertiary Treatment for N/P Removal

14
Concluding Remarks
In this exercise, we examined high-level TEA implications for using algae to treat wastewater,
examined from the standpoint of the algae farm (valorizing wastewater remediation as a
coproduct revenue stream for the algae farm to reduce biomass selling prices). Under the first
scenario considered as “complete” WWT, the algae farm was assumed to be built instead of a
new (or replaced) traditional WWT facility, following initial WWT pretreatment steps. Under
this approach, water treatment coproduct credits were assigned based on a dollar-per-million-
gallon throughput basis, reflecting industry data for traditional O&M costs alone or for fully
burdened WWT construction and operation costs, crediting the same treatment costs to the algae
farm as an “avoided expense.” Under our standard lower-protein HCSD biomass composition
basis, the resulting MBSPs were considerably reduced from the established algae farm design
case targets of $488/ton, down to $326/ton or $237/ton AFDW depending on the valorization
credit, which would provide significant assistance in enabling conversion fuel selling prices to
achieve the $2.5/GGE targets with less reliance on coproducts; additionally, existing and future
estimated wastewater volumes could plausibly support roughly 30–60 MM tons/yr of algal
biomass at the national scale, translating to roughly 2.5–5 BGGE/yr of national fuel potential.
However, this is a less realistic scenario in this particular context focused on continuous
treatment of N/P loads in incoming wastewater while also achieving the targeted 25 g/m2/day
cultivation productivity target. Alternatively, if focused on a higher-protein HPSD composition
(and thus higher N and P content, which is more realistic in this application as it does not allow
for “turning off” nutrient feeds to promote compositional shifts), the amount of biomass
produced, and thus the algae farm size, is considerably reduced to match the required N/P uptake
rates. This translates to lower MBSPs ($108/ton to negative $311/ton, which could reduce even
further for larger WWT scales or reduced seasonal productivity variability), but also lower
biomass production potential (roughly 4–12 MM tons/yr national biomass potential, translating
to 0.3–1.0 BGGE/yr national fuel potential). In all cases, the assumed valorization credits
between $2,400 and $4,500/MM gallon represent a critical driver behind the overall economic
viability for this approach.

The second integration scenario considered incorporating algae as a tertiary treatment method for
enhanced N/P mitigation, where the algae farm would serve as an addition to support traditional
WWT facilities’ efforts to meet more stringent N/P discharge concentration goals (targeted here
to be maximally reduced as low as 0.1 mg/L, though future work will refine this to higher/more
practical discharge limits reflecting current regulatory guidelines closer to 1 mg/L P and higher
levels for N), as an alternative to other more traditional N/P mitigation options. Under this
approach, treatment credits were assigned based on a fixed dollar-per-pound of N and P removal
basis, based on values from literature and discussions with industry bracketing a lower and upper
range of potential N/P removal credits (again viewed as “avoided expenses” that reflect costs for
alternative competing technologies to achieve the same goal). Similar to the “complete WWT”
scenario, the standard HCSD compositional basis was found to offer substantial MBSP reduction
benefits relative to the established algae farm design case, with MBSPs reduced to $99/ton or
negative $112/ton for the lower- and higher-value credits, respectively, while enabling roughly
12–15 MM tons/yr of national biomass potential (attributed to 1.0–1.3 BGGE/yr of national
biofuel potential). Given similar issues with the HCSD compositional basis as noted above, the
HPSD compositional basis would further reduce MBSPs to roughly negative $1,600 to
$3,000/ton, which could again reduce further for either larger WWT volumes or reduced
seasonal variability (more applicable to a controlled PBR system); but also would again translate
to lower national scalability potential at 1.6–2.3 MM tons/yr biomass or 0.1–0.2 BGGE/yr

15
biofuel (less than 0.1% of U.S. annual transportation fuel consumption). Such large negative
MBSPs, while not reflective of how a real facility would actually operate, indicate a highly
profitable operation that does not rely on revenues from selling biomass to remain viable, thus
adding credence to the assertions that highly engineered cultivation systems pursued by some in
industry for handling tertiary wastewater may be plausible for use in this application.

In summary, given such large allowances for valorizing wastewater treatment, both integration
approaches appear to offer the potential for strong economic favorability, with tertiary treatment
offering even lower MBSPs (larger revenues per amount of biomass produced) than complete
WWT. However, with the exception of lower N and P algal composition (HCSD-equivalent)
cases, which would be less practical in this context, the national scalability for algal biomass and
ultimately biofuels is fairly constrained when considered as an opportunity for algae to make
meaningful contributions to national fuel production. While this may limit the relevance for
broader fuel-scale adoption interest, it does not diminish the importance of this application to
help meet challenging demands for wastewater treatment in a competitive or potentially more
economical way compared to traditional WWT techniques, while supporting a nascent algae
industry to begin developing learnings that could be applied to other algae systems in the future.
Finally, although this exercise required placing a valorization credit on the treated water and
solving for MBSP in order to provide more directly comparable results to our prior algae farm
models (translating to very large coproduct revenues relative to biomass revenues), a more
appropriate way to estimate the economics for this application as a stand-alone TEA assessment
would be to assign a fixed sale price to the relatively small amount of biomass produced and
solve for either wastewater treatment cost or for facility net present value. Such an approach may
be further evaluated in the future, although more suitably from the viewpoint of comparing
wastewater technology options rather than algae cultivation options. Future work will also revisit
assumptions made here in further granularity regarding influent and targeted discharge N/P
concentrations, as well as treatment credits tailored to each respective nutrient component.

16
References
1. Davis, R., C. Kinchin, J. Markham, E. Tan, L.M.L. Laurens, D. Sexton, D. Knorr, P.
Schoen, and J. Lukas. 2014. Process Design and Economics for the Conversion of Algal Biomass
to Biofuels: Algal Biomass Fractionation to Lipid- and Carbohydrate-Derived Fuel Products.
Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

2. Davis, R., J. Markham, C. Kinchin, N. Grundl, E.C.D. Tan, and D. Humbird. 2016.
Process Design and Economics for the Production of Algal Biomass: Algal Biomass Production
in Open Pond Systems and Processing Through Dewatering for Downstream Conversion.
Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

3. Davis, R., J.N. Markham, C.M. Kinchin, C. Canter, J. Han, Q. Li, A. Coleman, S. Jones,
M. Wigmosta, and Y. Zhu. 2018. 2017 Algae Harmonization Study: Evaluating the Potential for
Future Algal Biofuel Costs, Sustainability, and Resource Assessment from Harmonized
Modeling. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

4. Seiple, T.E., A.M. Coleman, and R.L. Skaggs. 2017. "Municipal wastewater sludge as a
sustainable bioresource in the United States." Journal of Environmental Management 197: 673–
680.

5. Tetra Tech Inc. 2014. Lake Champlain Phosphorus Removal: Technologies and Cost for
Point Source Phosphorus Removal. Denver, CO: Tetra Tech Inc.

6. Lundquist, T.J., I.C. Woertz, N.W.T. Quinn, and J.R. Benemann. 2010. A Realistic
Technology and Engineering Assessment of Algae Biofuel Production. Berkeley, CA: Energy
Biosciences Institute.

7. Shi, C.Y. 2011. Mass Flow and Energy Efficiency of Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants. London: IWA Publishing.

8. Davis, R., and J. Clippinger. 2018. Algae Biofuels Techno-Economic Analysis FY18 Q4
Milestone: 2018 State of Technology. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

9. Cai, H., J. Dunn, A. Pegallapati, Q. Li, C. Canter, E. Tan, M. Biddy, et al. 2017. Supply
Chain Sustainability Analysis of Renewable Hydrocarbon Fuels via Indirect Liquefaction, Fast
Pyrolysis, and Hydrothermal Liquefaction: Update of the 2016 State-of-Technology Cases and
Design Cases. Lemont, IL: Argonne National Laboratory.

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. A Compilation of Cost Data Associated
with the Impacts and Control of Nutrient Pollution. Washington, DC: Office of Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

11. Bohutskyi, P., D.C. Kligerman, N. Byers, L.K. Nasr, C. Cua, S. Chow, C. Su, Y. Tang,
M.J. Betenbaugh, and E.J. Bouwer. 2016. "Effects of inoculum size, light intensity, and dose of
anaerobic digestion centrate on growth and productivity of Chlorella and Scenedesmus
microalgae and their poly-culture in primary and secondary wastewater." Algal Research 19:
278–290.

17
12. Zhou, Y., L.C. Schideman, G. Yu, and Y. Zhang. 2013. "A synergistic combination of
algal wastewater treatment and hydrothermal biofuel production maximized by nutrient and
carbon recycling." Energy & Environmental Science 6, no. 12: 3765–3779.

13. del Mar Morales-Amaral, M., C. Gómez-Serrano, F.G. Acién, J.M. Fernández-Sevilla,
and E. Molina-Grima. 2015. "Production of microalgae using centrate from anaerobic digestion
as the nutrient source." Algal Research 9: 297–305.

14. Dalrymple, O.K., T. Halfhide, I. Udom, B. Gilles, J. Wolan, Q. Zhang, and S. Ergas.
2013. "Wastewater use in algae production for generation of renewable resources: a review and
preliminary results." Aquatic Biosystems 9, no. 2.

15. Wang, L., M. Min, Y. Li, P. Chen, Y. Liu, Y. Wang, and R. Ruan. 2010. "Cultivation of
Green Algae Chlorella sp. in Different Wastewaters from Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plant." Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 162, no. 4: 1174–1186.

16. Husnain, T., B. Mi, and R. Riffat. 2015. "A combined forward osmosis and membrane
distillation system for sidestream treatment." Journal of Water Resource and Protection 7, no.
14: 1111–1120.

17. Khiewwijit, R., H. Temmink, H. Rijnaarts, and K.J. Keesman. 2015. "Energy and nutrient
recovery for municipal wastewater treatment: how to design a feasible plant layout?"
Environmental Modelling & Software 68: 156–165.

18. National Association of Clean Water Agencies. 2015. Opportunities & Challenges in
Clean Water Utility Financing and Management: Financial Survey Highlights. Washington, DC:
National Association of Clean Water Agencies.

19. Poole, K. (MicroBio Engineering), and R. Davis. November 2018. Personal

communication.

20. Stack, C., P. Kodukula (Neochloris), L. Schideman (University of Illinois), and R. Davis.
November 2018. Personal communication.

21. Main, D. 2015. “Two Numbers: Animal Manure a Growing Headache in America.”
Newsweek, December 8, 2015. https://www.newsweek.com/2015/12/18/two-numbers-animal-
manure-growing-headache-america-402205.html.

18