National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Boulevard 

Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory 

Operated by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

Updated Cost Analysis of 

Photobiological Hydrogen 

Production from 

Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

Green Algae 

Milestone Completion Report 

January 2004 • NREL/MP-560-35593 

Wade A. Amos 
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States 

government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, 

makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, 

completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents 

that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial 

product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily 

constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any 

agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect 

those of the United States government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: reports@adonis.osti.gov 

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov 

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
Updated Cost Analysis of Photobiological Hydrogen Production

From Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Green Algae

Wade A. Amos 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Milestone Report for the U.S. Department of Energy’s HCFIT Program 

Analysis Task 

September 2003 
INTRODUCTION 

In 1999 NREL completed a preliminary cost analysis of photobiological hydrogen production 

from Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (Amos, 1999). At the time, NREL researchers, in cooperation 

with researchers at the University of California-Berkeley, were able to produce hydrogen using a 

wild-type algae in a laboratory batch reactor system. Cells were first cultured, then switched to a 

sulfur-deficient environment to produce hydrogen. The researchers have now managed to 

produce hydrogen continuously using a series of two flow reactors. This is a critical process 

advancement. This study takes a more detailed look at the effects that cell density, light 

adsorption and light saturation have on algal hydrogen production. The previous study had 

looked mainly at incident light intensities, batch cycles and light adsorption without directly 

attempting to model the saturation effects seen in algal cultures. 

While research has continued on Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, the question asked most often 

with regards to algal hydrogen production is “how good does it get.” The previous study 

identified reduced antennae size, increased hydrogen production rates, continuous hydrogen 

production and lower reactor costs as critical factors in the cost of algal hydrogen production. 

However, if algal hydrogen production under the best conditions cannot begin to approach the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) cost goal of $2.60/kg for renewable hydrogen, does it make 

sense to continue funding the research? For this reason, the current study focuses on the future 

cost of hydrogen from algae and shows that in some cases the hydrogen selling price does 

approach the DOE cost target. 

One other aspect of algal hydrogen production is also included in this study: performance 

estimates based on actual solar data. A previous NREL report looked at solar-thermal hydrogen 

production from methane (Spath & Amos, 2002). The same solar conditions, economic 

assumptions and storage methods that were used in that study were used in this study to 

determine the cost of algal hydrogen production under real-world conditions. 

Based on this analysis, the estimated future selling price of hydrogen produced from algae ranges 

$0.57/kg to $13.53/kg, depending upon where you define the system boundaries. The base-case 

assumes a continuous hydrogen production system with a reactor cost of $10/m2

, a pressureswing adsorbption (PSA) unit, compression to 20 MPa, and enough storage to reliably supply 

300 kg/d despite bad weather conditions. For this system, the hydrogen selling price is 

$13.53/kg. If the system can be connected to a hydrogen pipeline and the production isn’t 

limited by storage capacity, the hydrogen selling price drops to $5.52/kg. If one removes the 

compression and assumes a PSA is not needed—hydrogen production at ambient pressures—the 

selling price drops to $3.68/kg. Finally, if one then assumes a lower photo-bioreactor price of 

$1/m2

, the selling price may be as low as $0.57/kg—below the DOE target. 

CYCLIC HYDROGEN PRODUCTION 

In 1999, researchers at NREL, working with researchers at University of California-Berkeley, 

discovered that Chlamydomonas reinhardtii could be forced to produce hydrogen under sulfurfree anaerobic conditions. The laboratory procedure was to grow the algae in light with a normal 

sulfur-containing growth media, then centrifuge and wash the cells in growth media that did not 
2

contain sulfur. The cells would then be added to the sulfur-deficient media and after a transition 

period of 24-48 hours, the cells would start producing hydrogen. Over the course of 4 days, the 

hydrogen production would slowly drop and eventually stop, presumably due to other effects of 

the sulfur deprivation. 

During the start of the transition, the algae’s oxygen production would drop due to the effects of 

sulfur deprivation. Eventually the oxygen consumption of the cells would exceed their ability to 

produce oxygen. At this point, the flasks would be sealed the cells would start to consume any 

residual oxygen in solution and eventually the flasks would go anaerobic. The addition of 

acetate to the growth media accelerated the transition by providing a carbon source that the cells 

could consume through aerobic oxidation. After going anaerobic, there would be another delay 

while the cells synthesized the hydrogenase enzyme required for hydrogen production. Once the 

solution was anaerobic and the hydrogenase enzyme had been synthesized, the cells could start 

producing hydrogen. 

During hydrogen production, oxygen production does not completely stop. The effect of sulfurdeprivation is to slow the first step of photosynthesis, where electrons are pulled from water in 

photosystem II (PS-II) to produce oxygen. It was discovered that complete removal of sulfur had 

an adverse effect on hydrogen production because PS-II would completely shutdown and not 

produce any electrons for transfer to the hydrogenase to produce hydrogen. Instead, the 

requirement is that PS-II be slowed to the point where any oxygen produced is consumed by the 

cells for normal respiration and no excess oxygen is produced. The sulfur deprivation also stops 

the cell growth in the culture. Figure 1 shows how electrons are pulled from water and raised to 

a higher energy level in PS-II. The electrons then drop to a lower energy level while the cells 

capture some of this energy for metabolic activities, before being given another boost in energy 

while passing through photosystem I (PS-I) in the algae. 

There are several options for the high-energy electrons leaving PS-I. The electrons can be 

recycled through PS-I to produce ATP energy for the cell, they can be diverted for cell growth 

and starch production, or they can be dumped to hydrogenase to produce hydrogen. Note that 

recycling electrons does not remove them from the cell, so if electrons continue to enter from 

PS-II, the only options are cell growth, starch production or hydrogen production. Cell growth 

and starch storage are hindered by sulfur deprivation, so hydrogen production remains as the 

main route for dumping electrons from the organism under anaerobic conditions. In other words, 

the reason a wild-type organism produces hydrogen is to rid itself of electrons fed in through PSII. 

Eventually, the sulfur deprivation has other adverse effects on the cells and hydrogen production 

stops after approximately 4 days—sooner if no sulfur at all is present in the sulfur-deficient 

growth solution. One option is to “regenerate” the cells by giving them sulfur again and 

exposing them to light to obtain the energy to recover. 
3

Figure 1 – Electron Pathway through PS-II and PS-I for Hydrogen Production 

CONTINUOUS HYDROGEN PRODUCTION 

One of the obvious improvements to the above system is to find a way to operate the system 

continuously, without the need to transfer the cells into a sulfur-deficient medium. In 2002, 

NREL researchers developed a system using two continuous-flow reactors for producing 

hydrogen continuously for periods of up to several weeks. 

The continuous hydrogen production process involves using two continuously-stirred tanks. 

Figure 2 shows the tank configuration. In Reactor 1, cells are cultured in media containing 

minimal levels of sulfur. PS-II is slowed and oxygen production remains lower than oxygen 

consumption for cellular respiration, but by bubbling the solutions with carbon dioxide and a 

small amount of oxygen, the cells are able to remain in Reactor 1 indefinitely, obtaining some 

energy from photosynthesis and some energy through respiration of acetate in solution. 
4

Figure 2 – Continuous Hydrogen Production 

Cells from Reactor 1 are transferred to Reactor 2, which is maintained under anaerobic 

conditions. Cells entering Reactor 2 already have suppressed PS-II systems, so they will not 

cause Reactor 2 to go aerobic. Any residual oxygen is quickly consumed by the algae in Reactor 

2. Finding themselves under anaerobic conditions, the cells will start producing hydrogenase 

and subsequently, hydrogen. The transition step that consumes the oxygen in solution in the 

batch system is avoided by having Reactor 2 already anaerobic. At the same time, some cells are 

continuously removed from Reactor 2. The effect is that the cells are removed from Reactor 2 

before they completely stop producing hydrogen. Successful operation has been shown with a 

dilution rate of 0.5/day, which is equivalent to an average residence time of 2 days for the cells. 

Because Reactor 2 is a continuously-stirred reactor (like Reactor 1), the average residence time is 

2 days, but some individual cells removed from the reactor may have been there longer or shorter 

times. With an average residence time of 2 days, one would expect a hydrogen production rate 

lower than the initial production rate of the batch system, but higher than the production rate at 

the end of a batch production cycle. The net effect of Reactor 2 is to add new fresh cells with a 

high production rate while also removing older cells near the end of their useful production 

cycle. It may be possible that a plug-flow reactor (PFR) would be more efficient. 

The cells removed from Reactor 2 could be regenerated, like in the batch system. As in any 

biological system, some cells will need to be removed to prevent build-up of inert biological 

materials that cannot be re-consumed by new cells. 

IDEAL SYSTEM 

As mentioned in the introduction, the primary area of concern at this stage of research is whether 

there is any chance that the technology can compete economically with other hydrogen 

production technologies. Addressing these economic concerns requires identifying the limiting 

factors for the design of the system. In algal hydrogen production, these limiting factors may be 

biological limits—such as how fast the organism can physically process photons from sunlight, 
5

solar considerations—such as average light intensities in the culture, engineering 

considerations—such as what reactor materials can be used, and scientific considerations—do I 

have the knowledge to do the required level of genetic engineering at this point? 

The ideal algal hydrogen production system would meet the following criteria: 

1). It would have no cell wasting—the cells would naturally maintain the same cell density 

without a net increase in cell mass and new cells would obtain nutrients through cryptic growth 

off dead cells. 

2). The pond depth would be just enough to maximize light adsorption, but no deeper. 

3). The cells would have a reduced antennae size so that they would adsorb only as many 

photons as they could convert to hydrogen and no more. This would allow the additional 

photons to pass deeper into the algal solution and be adsorbed by cells further down in the liquid. 

All the incident photons would thereby be absorbed and converted to hydrogen. 

4). All electrons passing through PS-II would be used for hydrogen production with no sidereactions. 

5). The cells would produce hydrogen at the maximum rate at which they could process 

electrons without any concerns with oxygen production and inhibition. 

5). The cells would be contained in a cheap, durable translucent reactor material that fully 

transmitted all required wavelengths, would have a low hydrogen permeation rate to contain the 

hydrogen, and would not allow algae cells to fasten to the inner surface and block the sunlight. 

SATURATION IN ALGAL CULTURES 

One factor limiting hydrogen production in algae is a phenomenon called light saturation. 

Whether producing oxygen or hydrogen, the gas production rate increases almost linearly at low 

light concentrations, but quickly levels out and approaches a maximum value, well before reach 

full sunlight intensity is reached. This is caused by the fact that algae are able to absorb far more 

photons than they can collect and transfer into PS-I. If the light-collecting antennae can be 

reduced in size, light will penetrate deeper into the cell culture. It is believed that if the antennae 

size can be reduced to a size that matches the cell’s ability to process the photons, it will not 

adversely affect the health of the algae cells. The University of California-Berkeley is actively 

developing mutants with reduced antennae size. By screening mutants for reduced antennae size 

and then identifying the DNA sequences that were modified, the researchers plan to identify the 

genes controlling antennae size. This information can then be used to optimize the antennae size 

in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as well as other photosynthetic organisms. 

Modeling saturation in algae greatly affects the predicted hydrogen production rates in algae 

cultures. In the previous NREL study, saturation was accounted for by comparing the hydrogen 

production rates of cultures under similar lighting conditions. In this study, the effects of 

saturation are modeled directly to determine the effect of cell concentration and antennae size on 

hydrogen production. 
6

MODELING SATURATION AND HYDROGEN PRODUCTION 

Estimating hydrogen production while accounting for saturation and differences in light intensity 

requires a comparison of the number of photons available with the amount of algae present in the 

culture. The number of photons absorbed by the culture was estimated by using Beer’s law to 

calculate light intensities at different depths in a pond of algae. Beer’s law states that 

absorbance, A, is a function of concentration, C, light path length, b, and a constant, Eta. 

 A = C*b*Eta 

Absorbance is defined as the negative log of the incident light intensity divided by the light 

intensity at the given path length. 

 A = - log (I/I0) 

The absorbance of an algal culture can be measured using a spectrometer. For this analysis, it 

was assumed that algae followed Beer’s law, but this was not confirmed. The following data 

was used for modeling light absorbance: A = 1.7 units, b= 1 cm, C = 0.34 g/L. 

To determine the light intensity and photons absorbed in the solution, the pond depth was 

divided into 0.2 mm deep layers. The % transmitted light was calculated at each depth using the 

equation: 

 I / I0 = % transmittance = 10-Eta*X*C

Where X is the depth into the liquid and C is the cell concentration in g/L. For a given light 

intensity, the number of photons transmitted per m2 was calculated. To determine the number of 

photons, the intensity of full sunlight was assumed to be 1000 W/m2, with 50% of that being 

photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). An average wavelength of 550 nm (average of 400-

700 nm) was assumed for calculating the average energy per photon. This resulted in a photon 

density of 2.3 x 10-3 ein/m2/s hitting the surface of the liquid. At the bottom of each 0.2 mm 

layer, the % transmitted light was multiplied by the number of photons hitting the surface. The 

difference in transmitted photons between one layer and the layer above it is the number of 

photons absorbed per m2

 in that 0.2 mm layer. In hydrogen production, it takes 2 electrons to 

form one molecule of hydrogen and it takes two photons per electron to pass the electrons from 

water through PS-II and PS-I. Therefore, the potential hydrogen production based on the 

photons absorbed is the number of photons absorbed times a yield coefficient of 0.25, or 5.75 x 

10-4 mol H2/m2

/s at the surface. 

2 H+

 + 2 e- Æ H2

Figure 3 shows the potential rate of hydrogen production based upon the number of PAR 

photons absorbed in a 0.2 g/L culture for depths of up to 4 cm for a wild-type algae. 
7

Figure 3 – Potential Hydrogen Production Based Upon PAR Photons Available 

0.0E+00

1.0E-07

2.0E-07

3.0E-07

4.0E-07

5.0E-07

6.0E-07

7.0E-07

8.0E-07

9.0E-07

1.0E-06

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s) per 0.2mm 

Layer

Photons

To determine the number of photons that can be processed by the culture (i.e., saturation), the 

volume of the 0.2 mm layer was calculated, (100 cm x 100 cm x 0.02 cm = 200 cm3 or 0.2 liters). 

This was multiplied by 0.2 g/L, which represents a typical dilute cell concentration used in the 

lab. The result is 0.04 g of cells in each 0.2 mm x 1 m2 layer of the culture. If we then assume 

most biological organisms can transfer 1 electron per gram cell dry weight of cells per day to an 

external electron acceptor (Gossett, 1995), we get a maximum hydrogen production rate of 

2.3x10-7 mol H2/m2/s per 0.2 mm layer of cells at 0.2 g/L cell concentration. 

Figure 4 shows the algal production limitation superimposed on the photon availability curve 

from Figure 3. Until a depth of about 2 cm into the solution, the number of photons available for 

hydrogen production far exceeds the algae’s ability to process them into hydrogen. The photons 

absorbed in excess of the algae’s production capability are not put to productive use, resulting in 

low light-to-hydrogen conversion efficiency. 
8

Figure 4 – Algal Production Limitation Compared to Photons Absorbed 

0.0E+00

1.0E-07

2.0E-07

3.0E-07

4.0E-07

5.0E-07

6.0E-07

7.0E-07

8.0E-07

9.0E-07

1.0E-06

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s) per 0.2mm 

Layer

Photons

Algae

At a depth of about 2.0 cm, the number of photons available becomes the limiting factor; there is 

enough algae to process the full number of photons being absorbed, but the light intensity near 

the bottom of the solution has dropped to a lower level. Figure 5 shows how much hydrogen 

will be produced in each 0.2 mm layer of algae at the given depth. Near the surface, the 

hydrogen production is constant because there are plenty of photons and the algae mass is 

limited in its ability to process them. Below 2 cm, the photons become limiting and the 

production in deep layers drops off down to 4 cm where almost all of the photons have been 

absorbed. Figure 6 is a log plot of Figure 5; the photons available drops logarithmically and the 

production per 0.2 mm layer drops with the photons available in the deeper sections of the pond. 
9

Figure 5 – Algal Hydrogen Production Based Upon Biological and Photon Limits 

0.0E+00

1.0E-07

2.0E-07

3.0E-07

4.0E-07

5.0E-07

6.0E-07

7.0E-07

8.0E-07

9.0E-07

1.0E-06

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s) per 0.2mm Layer

Photons

Algae

Production

Figure 6 – Log Plot of Algal Hydrogen Production 

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s) per 0.2mm 

Layer

Photons

Algae

Production

Keep in mind that the hydrogen production in Figures 3-6 are the hydrogen production per layer

of cell culture. The cumulative or net hydrogen production represents how much hydrogen can 

be produced for the entire 1 m x 1 m section of the pond. This hydrogen production rate is 

plotted in Figure 7, along with the light intensity. As you can see, the production increases 

linearly with pond depth and then eventually levels off once the light intensity becomes the 
10

limiting factor. (The difference in magnitude for the hydrogen production in Figure 7 compared 

with the previous figures is due to the fact that the cumulative production represents many 0.2 

mm layers added together.) 

Figure 7 – Net Hydrogen Production per Square Meter of Pond

0.0E+00

5.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.5E-04

2.0E-04

2.5E-04

3.0E-04

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s)

Light

Production

DIFFERENT CELL CONCENTRATIONS 

Figures 3-7 represented a culture with a cell concentration of 0.2 g/L, which is relatively dilute. 

Bacterial cell concentrations of 5 to 10 g/L are not uncommon in wastewater treatment and 

fermentations. The effect of cell concentration on light penetration is predictable: the higher the 

cell concentration, the more light that will be absorbed at any given depth and the lower the light 

intensity at the bottom of the culture. Figure 8 shows what happens to the available photons 

when the cell concentration is doubled from 0.2 to 0.4 g/L. Less light makes it to the bottom 

layers of algae and therefore there are fewer photons available to produce hydrogen at any given 

depth. In the case of the 0.4 g/L culture, almost all of the light is absorbed 2.0 cm below the 

surface. 
11

Figure 8 – Potential PAR Photons Available for Different Cell Concentrations 

0.0E+00

1.0E-07

2.0E-07

3.0E-07

4.0E-07

5.0E-07

6.0E-07

7.0E-07

8.0E-07

9.0E-07

1.0E-06

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s) per 0.2mm Layer

0.2 g/L

0.4 g/L

However, because the cell concentration in the culture is twice as high, the same 0.2 mm layer of 

cells contains twice the cell mass and can therefore process twice the number of photons to 

produce twice as much hydrogen per layer. Figure 9 shows the higher possible hydrogen 

production rate because of the increased cell mass. 
12

Figure 9 – Increased Biological Hydrogen Production at Higher Cell Concentrations 

0.0E+00

1.0E-07

2.0E-07

3.0E-07

4.0E-07

5.0E-07

6.0E-07

7.0E-07

8.0E-07

9.0E-07

1.0E-06

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s) per 0.2mm Layer

0.2 g/L

0.4 g/L

0.2 g/L

0.4 g/L

If one looks at the photon limitation and the biological algae limitation, one can generate Figure 

10, which compares the hydrogen production rate per layer. What is seen is that the higher cell 

concentration has higher hydrogen production rates in the upper layers, but the more dilute 

concentration allows the light to penetrate deeper before the hydrogen production drops off. 

Figure 11 is the log plot of the same data. 

Figure 10 – Algal Hydrogen Production for Higher Cell Concentrations 

0.0E+00

1.0E-07

2.0E-07

3.0E-07

4.0E-07

5.0E-07

6.0E-07

7.0E-07

8.0E-07

9.0E-07

1.0E-06

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s) per 0.2mm Layer

0.2 g/L

0.4 g/L
13

Figure 11 – Log Plot of Algal Hydrogen Production 

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s) per 0.2mm Layer

0.2 g/L

0.4 g/L

One thing to keep in mind is that the area under the depth vs. production curve in Figure 10 is the 

cumulative or net hydrogen production per m2. In Figure 10, you can see that the area under the 

two curves out to 4 cm is almost exactly the same. This is also shown in Figure 12, which is the 

cumulative or net hydrogen production for different pond depths. The interesting fact is that the 

model predicts that both cell cultures will produce the same amount of hydrogen per m2 if the 

pond is deep enough. However, if you have a pond depth of only 1 cm, the dilute 0.2 g/L pond 

will only have about half the production of the 0.4 g/L culture. If the pond is more than 4 cm, 

the total hydrogen production will be the same. 
14

Figure 12 – Net Algal Hydrogen Production for Higher Cell Concentrations

0.0E+00

5.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.5E-04

2.0E-04

2.5E-04

3.0E-04

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s)

0.2 g/L

0.4 g/L

0.2 g/L

0.4 g/L

Figure 13 shows the hydrogen production for a number of different cell concentrations. Note the 

units in this graph have been changed to kg H2/m2/d. (The numerical value of one “day” 

assumes 24 hours of sunlight so it can be normalized to the available daylight for any given 

region—the kg H2/m2/d does not assume a diurnal cycle.) From this graph, one can see that a 

pond depth of 10 cm will work for almost any culture; a deeper pond will not result in any 

increase in hydrogen production. However, a more shallow pond can be used for the more 

concentrated cultures without any loss in hydrogen production capacity. 
15

Figure 13 – Algal Hydrogen Production Rates for Various Cell Concentrations and Pond 

Depths 

0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0 2 4 6 8 10

Pond Depth (cm)

H2 Production (kg/m2 d)

0.1 g/L

0.2 g/L

0.4 g/L

0.8 g/L

1.6 g/L

3.2 g/L

6.4 g/L

TRUNCATED ANTENNAE SIZE 

The analysis up to this point has shown that hydrogen production can be limited by the photons 

available or the capacity of algae to process the photons into hydrogen. Another observation is 

that the number of photons absorbed is much higher than the algae’s ability to process the 

photons. If we can reduce the number of excess photons absorbed and let them reach deeper into 

the liquid, we should be able to produce more hydrogen. This is exactly the goal of truncated 

antennae size research being conducted at UC-Berkeley. By reducing the size of the algae’s light 

collecting antennae, but not affecting the organism’s ability to process the photons to produce 

hydrogen, one gets deeper light penetration for the same cell concentration, which means more 

photons are available at the lower depths for hydrogen production. This is shown in Figure 14. 

The mutant identified here allows 10 times more light transmission than the wild type organism. 

While 10 times light penetration may seem high, merely growing the algae under high light 

intensities can achieve 4 times higher light penetration. Also notice than the light now penetrates 

8 cm into the liquid, as compared to 4 cm for the wild-type. Both types of cells are assumed to 

be at 0.2 g/L cell concentrations. 
16

Figure 14 – Increased Light Penetration with Truncated Antennae Mutants 

0.0E+00

1.0E-07

2.0E-07

3.0E-07

4.0E-07

5.0E-07

6.0E-07

7.0E-07

8.0E-07

9.0E-07

1.0E-06

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s) per 0.2mm Layer

Wild Type

Mutant

Figure 15 superimposes the algae limitation curve on top of the mutant and wild-type photon 

curves. Since the cell concentration is the same in both cases, there is only one line for the 

biological limit. With the mutant, the light available doesn’t become limiting until you reach 4 

cm into the liquid. It also means that instead of the hydrogen production starting to drop off at 2 

cm, it doesn’t start dropping off until 4 cm into the liquid. This increased light penetration 

directly results in a higher net hydrogen production, as shown in Figure 16. The required pond 

depth is twice as much because of the better light penetration, but the net hydrogen production 

per m2 is twice as high for the same production area and same incident light level. Also note that 

the increased production potential of the mutant can’t be differentiated until the two production 

curves start to diverge at 2 cm of depth. Near the surface, both cultures are saturated with all the 

photons they can process. At 2 cm of depth the wild-type has absorbed most of the photons, but 

there’s still plenty of light in the mutant culture at a depth of 2 cm. 
17

Figure 15 – Biological Production Limits on Wild-Type and Mutant Algae 

0.0E+00

1.0E-07

2.0E-07

3.0E-07

4.0E-07

5.0E-07

6.0E-07

7.0E-07

8.0E-07

9.0E-07

1.0E-06

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s) per 0.2mm Layer

Wild Type

Mutant

Algae

Figure 16 – Comparison of Net Hydrogen Production for Mutant and Wild-Type Alage 

0.0E+00

5.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.5E-04

2.0E-04

2.5E-04

3.0E-04

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s)

Wild Type

Mutant

Wild Type

Mutant

CRITICAL POND DEPTH 

Figures 12 and 16 show that different pond depths are needed in order to maximize hydrogen 

production depending upon the cell concentration and antennae size. For each combination of 
18

antennae size and cell concentration, there will be a critical minimum pond depth required in 

order to achieve the maximum hydrogen production. Until the photons become limiting, the 

hydrogen net production rate per m2

 continues to increase steadily. Once one reaches the depth 

where the potential hydrogen from photons equals the algae’s potential to produce hydrogen, the 

hydrogen production rate starts to drop. If you assume the critical depth to be the depth where 

the two limits are equal you can plot how the required depth changes with concentration and 

antennae size. (Another method would be to plot a line where the photons drop to some 

percentage of the incident light level.) Figure 17 shows the critical depth for both a wild-type 

organism and a truncated antennae mutant. Because of the higher light penetration of the 

mutant, the deeper the pond is needed for any given cell concentration. Likewise, a more dilute 

solution requires a deeper pond because of the better light penetration. However, note that for 

any given antennae size, if you pond is deep enough, you will get the same net hydrogen 

production rate per m2, no matter what the cell concentration. You just need a deeper pond with 

the dilute culture. This point is not immediately obvious. 

(Note this analysis assumes the light absorbance of the culture obeys Beer’s law. This is not 

necessarily the case and has not been verified. NREL plans to collect more data to confirm this 

relationship.) 

Figure 17 – Critical Pond Depth for Mutant and Wild-Type Algae 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.1 1 10

Cell Concentration (g/L)

Critical Pond Depth (cm)

Wild Type

Mutant

INCIDENT LIGHT INTENSITY

As mentioned previously, the high light intensity near the surface of the algal culture doesn’t 

result in increased hydrogen production because the algal cells are already converting all of the 

photons they possible can into hydrogen. All of the photons that are absorbed in excess of what 

the algae can process are wasted and result in lost efficiency with respect to the light utilization 
19

This begs the question of what happens if the incident light intensity hitting the surface of the 

liquid is reduced? If one cuts the incident light level by 50%, does the hydrogen production drop 

by 50%? The answer is no.

Figure 18 shows the photons available for hydrogen production at 1 sun and at 0.1 suns. As 

expected, the culture being illuminated by a partial sun always has fewer photons available at 

any given depth. However, if you look at the critical depth, it is about 2 cm for 1 sun and 1 cm 

for 10% of a sun. If the critical depth is only on half of that of a normal sun, than the hydrogen 

production will also be about one half the normal value. This is shown also shown in Figure 19, 

which plots the net hydrogen production per m2. As you can see, the light intensity starts much 

lower and drops quicker in the 0.1 sun case, but for a 90% reduction in sunlight, the algal 

hydrogen production only drops by about 40%. The reason for this is because both cultures are 

saturated and therefore produce the same amount of hydrogen in the top 1 cm of the pond. After 

this depth, the production at 0.1 suns starts to drop off and then the full sun case drops off after 2 

cm. Because the top 1 cm has enough photons to be saturated in either case, the production 

remains high at partial illumination. 

Figure 18 – Photons Available for Hydrogen Production at Lower Light Intensities 

0.0E+00

1.0E-07

2.0E-07

3.0E-07

4.0E-07

5.0E-07

6.0E-07

7.0E-07

8.0E-07

9.0E-07

1.0E-06

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s) per 0.2mm Layer

1 sun

0.1 suns

Algae
20

Figure 19 – Algal Hydrogen Production at Lower Light Intensities 

0.0E+00

5.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.5E-04

2.0E-04

2.5E-04

3.0E-04

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

Depth (cm)

H2 Production (mol/m2 s)

1 sun

0.1 suns

1 sun

0.1 suns

The effect of lower light intensity has two important implications. First, if hydrogen production 

remains significant at low light intensities, it means that areas with lower light intensity or 

cloudy conditions may still have the potential to produce significant amounts of hydrogen. 

Second, it means that it may be possible to boost the efficiency of light utilization by collecting 

sunlight and then “diluting” it to lower levels and still maintain relatively high hydrogen 

production levels. For instance, one m2

 of collection area could be used to illuminate 10 m2 of 

production units while maintaining greater than 50% of the same production rate per m2

. That 

means for the same 1 m2 of collection area, you could get 10 m2 x 50% or 5 times the normal 

hydrogen production rate as a conventional pond system. 

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION CURVE 

In the laboratory, data is collected under standard conditions to help analyze the results. 

However, nature rarely provides standard or “ideal” conditions in the outside world. For this 

reason, it becomes important to determine how a laboratory system might perform when 

subjected to real-world conditions. 

The first step for converting data for use in a production model is to pick a set of design 

parameters for an algal hydrogen production system. Over the course of this study, a standard 

concentration of 0.2 g/L has been used. This will be the concentration used for the process 

design. Next, if we examine Figure 15, we can see than at 0.2 g/L, the critical depth for the 

mutant stain of algae producing 10 times the wild-type light transmission is about 4 cm with the 

light intensity dropping almost to zero at 8 cm. We will pick a pond depth of 10 cm for the 

process design using the mutant algae strain. This assures nearly maximum possible production 

of hydrogen per m2

. For higher cell densities, the critical pond depth would be lower, so a 10 cm 

pond maximizes production for 0.2 g/L or any higher cell concentration. 
21

Given these conditions: a 0.2 g/L culture with a 10 cm pond depth and a mutant that transmits 

10 times more light than normal, we can calculate the hydrogen production rate of our system for 

a range of light incident intensities. Figure 20 shows what the curve looks like for both a wildtype and the truncated antennae mutant. Note that the units in this graph are kg H2/m2

/d. The 

production rate curve is logarithmic and for the given design parameters has the following 

relationship between hydrogen production and light intensity: 

Production (kg H2/m2/d) = 0.0102 + 0.002 ln (I0) 

where I0 is the incident light intensity in suns. 

Figure 20 – Algal Hydrogen Production Versus Incident Light Intensity 

y = 0.002Ln(x) + 0.0102

R2

 = 0.9991

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014

2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00

Incident Light (suns)

H2 Production (kg/m2 d)

Wild Type

Mutant

Log. (Mutant)

SOLAR INSOLATION DATA 

Once we have a relationship between light intensity and hydrogen production, we can use hourly 

insolation data for a specific location to see how a solar production system might perform, taking 

into account weather patterns and diurnal cycles. NREL previously conducted a study on the 

solar-thermal decomposition of methane to produce hydrogen and carbon black (Spath & Amos, 

2002). In that study, solar insolation data from Phoenix, Arizona, was used. This study uses the 

same solar data. 

Insolation data is reported as an hourly average in W/m2

. For every hour over an entire year, the 

average light intensity was entered into the above equation and then multiplied by the chosen a 

pond area to obtain the hourly hydrogen production rate. By adding up the hourly production 
22

rates for the entire year, it was possible to calculate exactly how much hydrogen could be 

produced for a given pond area. 

For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the cell mass was constant. No cells were 

removed from the system and all new growth obtained their nutrients from cryptic growth off 

dead cell mass. In a real system, the build-up of inert material would require that some cells 

eventually be purged from the system. 

STORAGE ISSUES 

One concern with all intermittent solar systems is how the system will handle the loss of light at 

night and during cloudy periods. Unless the system is sited near an existing hydrogen pipeline, 

some type of backup system or storage is required to meet a constant demand for hydrogen at an 

isolated location, such as a refueling station. In the previous solar-thermal study, we looked at 

three system designs: a stand-alone system with sufficient storage to make it through the longest 

cloudy period; a system with an electric heater for the thermal cracking of hydrogen; and a 

system without storage that supplies a hydrogen pipeline. 

Storage requirements of intermittent solar systems must be determined using real solar data. 

While the need for storage to get one through the night is obvious, the maximum amount of 

storage to maintain reliable daily delivery of hydrogen is generally determined by one or two 

periods of especially cloudy weather during the year. It was also determined from the previous 

study that these periods of poor sunlight are not seasonal and occurred several times throughout 

the year. As a result, the storage requirements were quite high due to the need to supply storage 

several days in a row without any hydrogen production. 

Another problem associated with storage is that when the hydrogen storage tanks get full, all 

additional hydrogen production that day will be lost—there is simply no where to put the 

hydrogen. Initially it might seem that this would be a rare occurrence, but because you are trying 

to keep the hydrogen tanks full in case of poor weather, they are generally kept at 70% of 

maximum capacity or more. Increasing the onsite storage will gives one slightly more additional 

storage, but generally a large increase in storage capacity is required to significantly affect the 

net amount of hydrogen produced. Figure 21 shows how the hydrogen storage capacity varies 

from day to day during January and February. The hydrogen is drawn down each morning then 

hydrogen goes into storage during the day. Almost every day the maximum capacity of the 

storage system is reached, requiring shutdown of the system. During several points over the 

two-month time, the storage levels get down to 30%, so it would not be practical to reduce the 

onsite storage or else one would run out of hydrogen on those days. Light intensity is shown at 

the bottom of Figure 21. In the economics section, the amount of lost production due to storage 

limitations will be highlighted. 

If a system is connected to a pipeline, there are two benefits that improve the economics. First, 

there is no need for high-pressure storage—the hydrogen is dumped directly into the pipeline as 

it’s produced and the pipeline itself provides some storage due to changes in operating pressure. 

Second, production is no longer limited by storage capacity so the yearly hydrogen production is 

higher. 
23

Figure 21 – Affect of Weather on Storage Levels

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Storage Level (%)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Light Intesnity (suns)

REACTOR COST 

In the previous study on algal hydrogen production, the reactor cost significantly affected the 

price of the hydrogen produced. Estimates of reactor materials costs range from a few cents per 

m

2

 to $100 or more. The main reason for this is that different material requirements were 

assumed. While there are some commercial reactors that grow algae under artificial light to 

produce food additives or supplements, these represent high-value materials so the reactor can be 

more expensive. For food additives, certain FDA requirements must be met, which further 

increases the cost of the reactor. Algal hydrogen production does not need to meet FDA 

requirements and it is also possible that if selective growth pressures can be determined for the 

specific cultures of interest, no sterilization will be required. 

The previous study reviewed the retail price of different transparent and translucent materials 

that could be used to construct a bio-reactor for algal hydrogen production. These prices are 

shown in Table 1. It is reasonable to assume that if glass or Plexiglas is used, the reactor cost 

could approach $100/m2

. However, if one assumes that something like polyethylene film with a 

hydrogen-impermeable coating is used, the cost could be $1.00/m2 or less. For this study, 

$100/m2, $10/m2 and $1/m2 were used. It was assumed that 10% land would be required in 

addition to the area used for the ponds themselves. 
24

Table 1 – Retail Cost of Transparent & Translucent Materials 

Material Cost ($/m2) 

Glass $51.61 

Plexiglas $15.47 

Clear PVC $5.56 

Blue Tarp $0.46 

4 mil polyethylene $0.19 

1 mil polyethylene $0.05 

HYDROGEN PURIFICATION 

One question asked with regards to algal hydrogen production was how much purification of the 

hydrogen would cost. It is assumed that the hydrogen produced would be relatively pure, except 

for some water vapor and possibly some carbon dioxide. It certainly wouldn’t contain any 

contaminants of major concern, such as carbon monoxide or high levels of sulfur. However, for 

the sake of completeness, a PSA capital cost with the associated compression was included in the 

base case. Cases were also run without a PSA unit. 

HYDROGEN COMPRESSION 

For the cases that include hydrogen storage, compressor capital charges and electricity 

consumption are included. For the pipeline case, compression to 2 MPa was included. Note that 

all compressors must be sized for peak hydrogen flow, which can be significantly higher than the 

average flow. For comparison to other hydrogen production systems, the capacity factor and 

storage-to-production ratio of the stand-alone 300 kg/d system were 25.5% and 3.33:1, 

respectively. The capacity factor for the pipeline system was 39.5%--about one third of the 

potential hydrogen production was lost due to the storage limitation. Because of the high cost of 

storage and compression, one case was run without including any compression or storage. 

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION RATES 

Two stand-alone daily hydrogen production rates were chosen: 300 kg/d and 600 kg/d. These 

represent the flow rates at which hydrogen can be reliably supplied. In other words, the peak 

production rates are slightly higher and include some storage. The pipeline only case uses the 

same pond area as the 300 kd/d system, but does not have a storage limitation, so it supplies 446 

kg/d, on average. A 300 kg/d production rate represents the amount of hydrogen required for 

one refueling station pump supplying 100 cars per day. 

CAPITAL COSTS 

Table 2 shows the capital cost breakdown for the 300 kg/d stand-alone system with 110,000 m2

of pond area, 0.2 g/L cell concentration, a truncated antennae mutant, 10 cm pond depth, and a 

$10/m2

 bio-reactor cost for a site in Phoenix, Arizona. 
25

Table 2 – Algal Hydrogen Production Capital Costs 

Algae Ponds $1,100,000

PSA Compressor $359,000

PSA Unit $121,000

Storage Compressor $578,000

High-Pressure Storage $913,000

Total Equipment Cost $3,071,000

Engineering & Construction $1,423,000

Contractor Fees & Contingency $674,000

Total Capital Investment $5,168,000

OPERATING COSTS 

The yearly operating costs for the same system are listed in Table 3. These costs include 

electricity for mixing, periodic washing of the pond covers, maintenance, electricity for the 

compressors, PSA operating costs, and labor for one person to spend 25% of their time onsite. 

The algal hydrogen production system shouldn’t require full-time onsite supervision. 

Table 3 – Algal Hydrogen Production Operating Costs 

 Annual Cost $/kg 

Mixing/Pumping Electricity $12,000 $0.11

PSA Compressor Electricity $6,000 $0.06

Storage Compressor Electricity $18,000 $0.16

Labor $24,000 $0.22

PSA Operating Cost $4,000 $0.03

Maintenance & Washing $55,000 $0.50

Capital-Related Charges $1,360,000 $12.44

Hydrogen Sales $1,480,000 $13.53

HYDROGEN SELLING PRICE 

A discounted cash flow analysis assuming a 15% return on investment was performed to 

determine the minimum hydrogen selling price for several different system designs. The stated 

selling prices all assume ongoing improvements are successful. The selling price associated with 

the current state of development in algal hydrogen production would be significantly higher. 

The minimum hydrogen selling prices for the different systems are shown in Table 4, along with 

the associated capital costs and annual operating costs. 
26

Table 4 – Capital Costs, Operating Costs and Hydrogen Selling Prices for Different Algal 

Hydrogen System Configurations 

System Design Capital Cost Annual 

Operating 

Cost 

Minimum 

Hydrogen 

Selling Price 

300 kg/d, $10/m2, PSA, high-pressure storage $5.2 million $119,000 $13.53 

600 kg/d, $10/m2, PSA, high-pressure storage $9.1 million $214,000 $11.96 

300 kg/d, $10/m2, PSA, pipeline delivery $3.2 million $131,000 $5.92 

300 kg/d, $10/m2, high-pressure storage $5.0 million $115,000 $12.93 

300 kg/d, $10/m2, pipeline delivery $2.9 million $127,000 $5.52 

300 kg/d, $10/m2, ponds only, no compression $1.9 million $101,000 $3.68 

300 kg/d, $1/m2, ponds only, no compression $0.2 million $51,000 $0.57 

300 kg/d, $1/m2, PSA, high-pressure storage $3.5 million $70,000 $8.97 

300 kd/d, $1/m2, PSA, pipeline delivery $1.5 million $81,000 $2.83 

300 kd/d, $100/m2, PSA, high-pressure storage $22.2 million $614,000 $439.00 

High-pressure storage only $3.0 million $24,000 $7.75 

Pipeline delivery, no storage limit $1.1 million $47,000 $2.04 

DISCUSSION 

The base case design for the algal system produced hydrogen for a minimum hydrogen selling 

price of $13.53/kg. This price included a 15% return on investment, included the required 

hydrogen storage for periods of low sunlight and assumed a reactor cost of $10/m2. By doubling 

the pond area and production rate, the hydrogen selling price drops to $11.96/kg due to 

economies of scale and reduced labor charges per kg of hydrogen. 

One question was whether or not the pressure swing adsorption would be required. In the 

analysis, the capital and operating costs associated with PSA purification were included, but the 

same hydrogen production was assumed in all cases. The reason for this is that low contaminant 

levels are expected and some excess hydrogen from storage could be used for purging the PSA 

beds. Removing the PSA capital and operating costs dropped the hydrogen selling price to 

$12.93/kg, so the PSA itself doesn’t increase the costs greatly, but if the hydrogen recovery is 

low, the hydrogen selling price will increase. 

The major contributor to the hydrogen selling price is the compression and storage required to 

make it through the periods of poor sunlight. The compression and storage alone contribute 

$7.75/kg to the hydrogen selling price. The solar-thermal decomposition study performed by 

NREL came to the same conclusion. To present a fair comparison of the cost of production 

without storage, one option was to site the production facility on an exiting hydrogen pipeline. 

This not only eliminated the high-pressure storage, but allowed a higher average daily production 

rate because there was not storage limitation. The minimum selling price without storage, but 

with compression to pipeline pressure was $5.52/kg with the $10/m2

 reactor cost. 

One other question to be answered by this economic analysis is what the actual hydrogen 

production looks like without the complications of compression and storage. If one considers 
27

only the cost of the production ponds, the hydrogen selling price would be $3.68/kg for a reactor 

costing $10/m2. For a reactor costing $1/m2, the hydrogen selling price drops at $0.57/kg, 

showing the importance of the reactor cost. If the storage cost is included with the $1/m2

 reactor 

cost, the hydrogen selling price becomes $8.97/kg. For the higher reactor cost of $100/m2, the 

hydrogen selling price goes up to $439.00/kg—again indicating the importance of reactor cost. 

CONCLUSIONS

Although there are several cases where the minimum hydrogen selling price approaches or 

reaches the DOE targets, this analysis assumes a very high algal hydrogen production rate—

much higher than what has been demonstrated in the lab. In addition, some simple assumptions 

were made regarding the absorption of light by the algae. While future improvement in the 

hydrogen production rate are hard to predict, the optical properties of these cultures can be 

verified through data collected in the lab or through literature searches. 

There are two other major factors that will affect the eventual cost of the algal hydrogen 

production. The first is the cost of the photo-bioreactor. Because of the shear size of the 

hydrogen production ponds, the bioreactor cost must be minimized. However, until more 

information is provided on what materials are appropriate for use in the photo-bioreactors, it is 

hard to estimate how low the reactor cost might be. For this reason a wide range of reactor 

prices was used in this analysis. 

The second major cost factor is the storage required for a stand-alone system. For any 

intermittent renewable, compression and storage will be major factors, whether an algal 

production system, a solar-thermal production system, or a wind system. Since conventional 

high-pressure compression and storage are mature technologies, any cost reductions in this area 

would come through improved or new technology. 

The current areas of research include truncated antennae mutants, oxygen-tolerant hydrogenases 

and increased hydrogen production rates. All of these factors are important to the economics of 

algal hydrogen production. The truncated antennae size allows deeper light penetration into the 

growth ponds and higher hydrogen production rates. An oxygen-tolerant hydrogenase is 

important if oxygen production exceeds the oxygen consumption of the algae at higher hydrogen 

production rates. Finally, demonstrating higher and higher hydrogen production rates is a vitally 

important factor in the economics. This analysis assumes a production rate that matches the 

typical rate of electron transfer for bacteria or other micro-organisms. It might be possible 

through genetic engineering to even increase this maximum electron transfer rate and produce 

even more hydrogen. 

The previous analysis of algal hydrogen production looked at a batch system and used incident 

light intensities and an average number of hours of daylight to estimate the hydrogen production. 

In this analysis, saturation effects are included and actual solar insolation data is used to estimate 

the hydrogen production. These are improvements over the previous analysis. 

The major recommendation would be to collect more information on photo-bioreactor costs. 

Critics of algal hydrogen production often cite the high reactor cost as the major roadblock. 
28

However, if some of the materials lower down on the list of materials in Table 1 are acceptable, 

the installed reactor cost may be close to $1/m2 and therefore closer to the DOE goal. 

REFERENCES 

Amos, Wade A. (September 2000). Cost Analysis of Photobiological Hydrogen Production 

from Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Green Algae. Golden, CO: National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory. 

Gossett, J.M. (1995). Bioenergetics & Stoichiometry. Course Notes. CEE576 – Environmental 

Engineering Processes I. Itahca, NY: Cornell University. 

 

Spath, Pamela L.; Amos, Wade A. (April 2002). Assessment of Natural Gas Splitting with a 

Concentrating Solar Reactor for Hydrogen Production. NREL/TP-510-31949. Golden, 

CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

 OMB NO. 0704-0188 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

January 2004 

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 

Milestone Completion Report 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Updated Cost Analysis of Photobiological Hydrogen Production from Chlamydomonas 

reinhardtii Green Algae: Milestone Completion Report 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Wade A. Amos 

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

HY03.4041 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

 Golden, CO 80401-3393

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

NREL/MP-560-35593 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

 Springfield, VA 22161

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

 

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This report updates the 1999 economic analysis of NREL’s photobiological hydrogen production from Chlamydomonas 

reinhardtii. The previous study had looked mainly at incident light intensities, batch cycles and light adsorption without directly 

attempting to model the saturation effects seen in algal cultures. This study takes a more detailed look at the effects that cell 

density, light adsorption and light saturation have on algal hydrogen production. Performance estimates based on actual solar 

data are also included in this study. Based on this analysis, the estimated future selling price of hydrogen produced from algae 

ranges $0.57/kg to $13.53/kg.

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

14. SUBJECT TERMS 

photobiological hydrogen production; Chlamydomonas reinhardtii 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF REPORT

Unclassified 

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

UL 

 NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18 

298-102