Washington-Claims by University of Virginia researchers that conventional crops such as switchgrass, canola, and corn have lower environmental impacts than algae as energy sources are being challenged by algae advocates. The study, which was published in Environmental Science and Technology, concluded that “The large environmental footprint of algae cultivation is driven predominantly by upstream impacts, such as the demand for CO2 and fertilizer.” But the Algal Biomass Organization (ABO) responds that the report was based on obsolete data and grossly outdated business models, and overlooked tremendous improvements in technology and processes across the production cycle. ABO advised 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,” 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.” Dr. Stephen Mayfield, director of the San Diego Center for Algae Biotechnology, added, “Even with the scientific shortcomings of the survey, it shows that with a few improvements, algae is much better than terrestrial plants as a fuel source. The truth is that the algae industry is already well beyond the obvious improvements these authors suggest, and as we add these new efficiencies algae will become much more environmentally beneficial.”
Transparency Across the Fertilizer Value-Chain