Mass Cultivation of Microalgae III: A Philosophical and Economic Exploration of Carbon Capture and Utilization

Abstract

This article discusses an innovative carbon capture and utilization project from societal, economic, and ethical perspectives. UiT—The Arctic University of Norway and the ferrosilicon producer Finnfjord AS, both located in Northern Norway, collaborate to develop sustainably produced fish feed by cultivating microalgae (diatoms) that feed on CO₂ from the factory fume. The microalgae biomass, when added to fish feed applied in the aquaculture industry, contributes nutrients that are essential to human and fish health. The project carries the potential to contribute to the operationalization of the Sustainable Development Goals. The present study is intended as a contribution to the literature focusing on CO₂ utilization as a means of achieving a sustainable “green” transition in the industry. By viewing the utilization of CO₂ through the lenses of biotechnology, a circular economy, ethics and philosophy, our research findings are relevant to sustainability scholars, industrial actors, and policy makers. It also presents future perspectives on how the aquaculture and manufacturing industries can contribute to the operationalizing of the Sustainable Development Goals in a rapidly evolving industrial environment that is now undergoing a paradigm shift.

1. Introduction

Central in industries’ actions towards a new green future are remedies to reduce energy consumption and CO₂ footprints, and here microalgae may come to the fore. An innovative university–industry collaboration between UiT—The Arctic University of Norway and local heavy industry (Finnfjord AS that produces ferrosilicon) in northern Norway exemplifies such a pursuit.

Microalgae are small (1–500 μm) unicellular organisms capable of photosynthesis based on CO₂ and inorganic nutrients. Microalgae are major primary producers in the ocean and contribute up to 50% of the global oxygen production. They thrive in all aquatic environments and mainly grow by binary fission (cell division) but can also have spore formation and sexual reproduction. They grow fast (1–2 doublings day⁻¹) and there are at least 100,000 species [1]. The microalgae group diatoms add up to ca. 10,000 species. Diatoms have porous transparent silica scales, are nutritious with respect to polyunsaturated fatty acids and protein and generate most of the organic matter that serves as food for life in the sea [2].

Natural stocks of microalgae have been harvested as human food for several hundred and possibly thousand years in Africa and Asia [3]; while microalgae have been studied for more than a century, commercial mass cultivation of microalgae dates back to the mid-20th century [4,5,6].

Cultivation of microalgae can take place in the presence of light in several types of bioreactors such as open pond systems, flat plate reactors, horizontal and vertical tubular reactors. There are also heterotrophical species being cultivated in the absence of light in fermenters [7], e.g., for the production of the pigment astaxanthin [8]. Of these, the open pond type often comes out as the most profitable [9], but on the other hand these are quite uncontrollable with respect to temperature, turbulence and illumination [10].

Applications are today highly diverse, i.e., microalgae are promising ingredients in food, feed, cosmetics, and aquafeed [11], and they are important sources of, e.g., polyunsaturated fatty acid [12,13]. Potentially, microalgae are also rich sources of bioactive compounds important to human and animal health and wellbeing [14,15,16,17,18,19]. Other promising value-added products are, e.g., diatom frustules (cell walls of biogenic silica) applied to improve the performance of lithium-ion battery anodes [20], solar panels [21] and drug delivery systems [22]. Further, one of the most sought-for antioxidants/pigments in aquaculture, i.e., astaxanthin, is synthesized by microalgae [23]. However, most astaxanthin used in aquaculture today is synthetic, despite that it is assumed not to be of the same quality as the natural product [24].

Originally, microalgae were also expected to be suppliers of sustainably produced non-food feedstock (third generation) biofuel [25], but today the produced oil is too expensive for the market (>4 USD/L). It is, though, expected that optimizations of the production process shall increase production volumes and thereby lower prices [26].

Atmosphere and seawater CO₂ concentrations are around 0.04%. Microalgae cultivated in densely populated reactors demand CO₂ concentrations way above this, i.e., >5%, and can therefore be useful agents capturing factory fume CO₂ [6,27], especially in CCU (Carbon Capture and Use) contexts. Due to this ability to capture CO₂ and produce nutritious biomass and other valuable products, microalgae are by many considered the “green gold” of the future [28,29,30,31,32,33]. Total world microalgae biomass production is today meagre, probably only around 50,000 tons/year [34], i.e., only ca. 0.01% of the world’s soy production, which amounts to ca. 400 MT [35]. The reason for this is, as mentioned for biofuel, that production is too costly due to bottlenecks related to physiological properties, the cultivation environment, reactor construction and especially light utilization [36,37]. Also, despite the large taxonomic and thereby physiological and biochemical diversity of microalgae, few species have been thoroughly investigated and tested for commercial production in large-volume photobioreactors [38]. Common for microalgae species that have been mass cultivated so far is that they are small green and blue-green species [36].

Globally, fish has been and will continue to be a major source of essential nutrients for humans. The world’s population is increasing, and at the same time wild fish stocks are at risk of overexploitation. During the period 1950 to 2010, 27% of global marine fish capture was applied for other uses (feed for farmed fish, chicken, and pigs) than human consumption. Also, these catches were in fact largely food-grade, emphasizing that fish feed should preferably have origins other than fisheries [39]. This puts microalgae and especially nutritious diatom biomass to the fore [40]. The lack of suitable marine feed organisms has led to the replacement of marine ingredients in fish feed with biomass of terrestrial origin such as soy [41]. This has resulted in reductions in fish health, e.g., due to a reduced omega-3 content both in feed and salmon [42,43], consequentially reducing the positive health effect on humans. Salmon aquaculture in Norway must also deal with several environmental challenges that influence fish health and the economy negatively. The most important of these is lice infestation. Salmon lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) can cause disease, reduced growth and increased mortality [44,45,46]. Annual total delousing costs have passed 6 billion NOK (534 million USD) [47]. It is therefore imperative to minimize the negative effects of lice on fish health and welfare, the environment, and the economy if the salmon aquaculture industry shall continue to exist and expand.

The present study is intended as a contribution to the literature, focusing on CO₂ utilization as a means of achieving a sustainable “green” transition in the industry. By viewing the utilization of CO₂ through the lenses of biotechnology, a circular economy, ethics and philosophy, our research findings are relevant to sustainability scholars, industrial actors, and policy makers. It also presents future perspectives on how the aquaculture and manufacturing industries can contribute to the operationalization of the sustainable development goals in a rapidly evolving industrial environment that is undergoing a “green” paradigm shift. As an example of a CO₂ capture process, we here refer to and use data from an ongoing industry—university pilot microalgae (diatom) mass cultivation project. The main project partners are the ferrosilicon factory Finnfjord AS and UiT—The Arctic University of Norway, both situated in the southern part of northern Norway. Thorough descriptions of the project, processes, and data referred to are already published [36,40,48], i.e., this article only focuses on the most important project inventory and cultivation results. The main application of the diatom biomass was from the start fish/salmon feed, this with the alleviation of the lack of marine biomass in the feed as a result. Lately, salmon lice reduction [40] and value-added products such as omega-3 oils, diatom scales and pharmaceuticals have had much focus.

The main novelty of this article is a discussion of the philosophical and societal aspects of the use of microalgae for the purpose of carbon capture and production of sustainable fish feed. The description of the scientific aspects of the project serves as a background for the philosophical and social–scientific discussion of the project. The article starts by evaluating the natural science aspects of using diatoms as an ingredient in fish feed. This is followed by an examination of the techno-economic and circular economy aspects of such production. Subsequently, the article analyzes the role of stakeholder collaboration in pursuits of sustainable value for the circular economy. Next, the article explores its importance for the promotion of the human rights-based Sustainable Development Goals and the virtue ethical question of what it means to flourish and live well when facing anthropogenic environmental problems. Throughout, the article analyzes the synergies between these aspects at three levels: the “micro-level” (firm-level engineering and managerial level), “meso-level” (industrial ecology, and industrial symbiosis), and “macro-level” (general policies, and green and sustainable entrepreneurship).

The cooperation between UiT—The Arctic University of Norway and the ferrosilicon producer Finnfjord AS is an example of a how sustainable value can be created through the involvement of numerous stakeholders in the drive for a joint sustainability purpose. The argument that production costs are too high may also be re-evaluated in the present context where environmental and societal effects are more in focus. It can be postulated that the inclusion of diatom biomass in fish feed has multiple benefits. For instance, it eliminates the need for long-distance transport and allows for locally produced fish feed with a high omega-3 content. Reductions in efforts to reduce salmon lice and a transition to prophylactic ecological methods can make salmon aquaculture more sustainable. The inclusion of diatom biomass in salmon feed can also lower the environmental footprint of the fish feed if it replaces ingredients with a higher footprint [49].

2. The Diatom Mass Cultivation Project

The UiT—Finnfjord AS project has, as mentioned earlier, been described in detail in Eilertsen et al. [36,40,48]. The main Finnfjord product, ferrosilicon, is a necessary ingredient in steel production, and Finnfjord is committed to sustainable production and is working to reduce its environmental impact. This is done by, e.g., optimizing processes and using biocarbon instead of coal in the production process. Finnfjord also has an energy recovery system (ERG) where factory fume heat is used to generate around 340 GWh year⁻¹ of electric power by means of a steam turbine and a generator. At the start of the project in 2015, the main aim was to develop and optimize production of diatoms as ingredients in fish feed, while at the same time performing CCU by capturing and using CO₂ and NOx from factory fume. Today the project is still running, integrated in the production line at the factory, now operating 2 × 6000 L, 1 × 14,000 L and 1 × 300,000 L reactors [36]. The produced biomass also has lice-deterring effects. The process is now at an estimated TRL (Technology Readiness Level) level of 7/8.

2.1. Diatom Cultivation Process

The main flow of the diatom (Porosira glacialis) cultivation processes is shown in Figure 1. Factory fumes are pumped with a compressor into the vertical column airlift reactor. This supplies CO₂ and NOx into the culture and creates turbulence. Inorganic nutrients (N, P, Si) are fed into the reactor at amounts compensating for the uptake by the growing algae in the reactor (

Table 1. Main material requirements for mass producing diatom biomass at Finnfjord AS. Thorough description is in Eilertsen et al. [36,48]. Table does not account for necessary factory infrastructure, i.e., fume production, workshops, ERG system, etc.

Unit	Description	Function	Capacity/Units
Water filter system	Self-cleaning system and filter cartridges	Seawater serves as cultivation medium	150,000 L 24 h−1 5–10 μm retention
Inorganic nutrients	Dose pumps	Adds N, P and Si	Adjustable
Fume injection	Compressor and rotating injector in reactor	Adds CO2 an NOx and creates mixing in reactor	5% CO2 in fume >50,000 L fume 24 h−1
Reactor	Glass fibre vertical column	Algae cultivation	300,000 L
Illumination 1	Natural light	Illuminates upper reactor	Mean/year ca. 12 Wm−2
Illumination 2	Artificial light as W	Illuminates sub surface	Total LED light 11 kW *
De-watering 1	1-stage Drum filter	100 × concentration	200,000 L 24 h−1
De-watering 2	Bowl centrifuge	4000 × concentration	Biomass w. 63–74% water
Sensors in reactor	CO2, pH, temp., sal., turbidity	Logs reactor environment	%, pH, ppt, NTU
Sensors in reactor	scalar and cosine light	Logs and monitors light in reactor and atmosphere	W m−2, μmol m−2 s−1
Manual monitoring	Cells L−1, Chla, O2	Measured every workday	Cells L−1, μg L−1
Manual monitoring	NO3−, NO2−, PO4−, Si(OH)4	Measured every second workday	μmol L−1

* Improved results assumed by use of large cells and blue pulsing light.

).

The filtered seawater used as cultivation medium is cooling water from the energy recovery system at the factory. Illumination is natural as well as from submerged LED lamps. De-watering is performed with a drum filter and a bowl centrifuge. Growth is continuous, i.e., regulated so that biomass concentration in the reactor is constant and growth gain is harvested by the de-watering system prior to being stored frozen (−20 °C). In order to evaluate diverse energy saving methods, the UiT—Finnfjord project operates a “Large cell blue pulsing light” concept. When mass-cultivating microalgae, it is of crucial importance to minimize the effect of self-shading [50]. Most reactors applied today are complicated and expensive and operate small volumes at short light depths. This is due to the high self-shading of the small species applied, i.e., small cells have larger surface-to-volume ratios than large cells [48]. The UiT—Finnfjord project uses large cells that allows for longer light depths and thereby larger reactors that can serve larger volumes of biomass. When this is combined with blue pulsing light, this can lead to significant energy savings [48,51].

The project has a high degree of reuse of resources and energy in the cultivation process. The CO₂ taken up by the microalgae (diatoms) is from the factory fume, and the cultivation medium is seawater already used (and heated if necessary) as cooling water in the energy recovery system (ERG), while the electricity used in the production process (artificial illumination, pumps, etc.) is from fume heat that drives the ERG system (Figure 2). Further, the biomass can be dried by rest heat from the fume. The product (algae biomass) in the present pilot project is, e.g., used (and tested) as an ingredient in salmon feed (Figure 2). Important here is also the short distance between the production of algae biomass and salmon aquaculture facilities.

2.2. Diatom Project Results

The project is defined at TRL7/TRL8, but experience obtained during pilot runs indicate where new process optimizations can be implemented to achieve better sustainability, this weighted against environmental and economic factors (

Table 2. Main results from runs with 300,000 L reactor at Finnfjord AS. Published and unpublished recently collected data. * = [36]; ** = [48]; *** = [53].

Variable	Present	Aim	Remark
Uptake efficiency of CO2 *	51%	70%	It is already high!
Photosynthesis light utilization *, **	19.8%	Higher	High, but can it be improved?
Efficiency of LEDs *, **	65%	80%	65 is high, but can be improved
Uptake efficiency of fume *	50% *	70%
Production biomass (maximum) *	0.5 g L−1 Day−1	1.0 g L−1 Day−1	63–74% water
Production loss in de-watering *	0.07 g L−1 Day−1	0.01 g L−1 Day−1
Time between cleaning reactor *	4–5 months	4–5 months	Algae produces antifouling agent
SO2 scrubbing	nan	nan	Must implement to stabilize CO2
De-watering efficiency (maximum) *	26–37%	50%	Longer centrifugations increase DW
Lipid content (of DW) *, **	19.7%		Mean of 9 measurements
EPA/DHA of total lipid *	31.6/4.9%		Mean of 9 measurements
Protein (of DW) *	27.0%		Mean of 3 measurements
Heavy metal Cu *	11.5 mg kg−1		Below food safety < 10 mg kg−1 ***
Heavy metal Mn *	38.0 mg kg−1		Below food safety < 10 mg kg−1 ***
Heavy metal Zn *	270.7 mg kg−1		Above food safety < 200 mg kg−1 ***
Heavy metal Mg *	7511.0 mg kg−1		Below food safety < 10 mg kg−1 ***
Other heavy metals *	<1.0 mg kg−1		Below food safety < 5 mg kg−1 ***
PAH carcinogens *	0.018 mg kg−1		Below food safety < 0.05 mg kg−1 ***
Benzoapyren *	0.018 mg kg−1		Low but regulations also unclear
Mixing *	0.1 m s−1		Must be optimized utterly

). Here, the present CO₂ efficiency (51%) is already high compared with other systems [52] but potential for improvement is certainly present.

The same is the case for the utilization of light in biomass production (algae growth) and LED efficiency. The species we cultivate (Porosira glacialis) is a northern/arctic species that grows well down to −2 °C [54]. Further, it is possible to produce continuously 4–5 months, contaminants are low and nutritional value is in the high end of what can be expected for microalgae [55]. Therefore, since the technology and biology are functioning, what needs to be done to increase production is to increase illumination efficiency and balance this vs. mixing (cells can experience photoinhibition when exposed too long to high light intensities). However, this demands a lot of electric power. Also, the de-watering process can be improved, probably without negative sustainability effects.

To quantify the most important flow of energy, C and minerals in the system, data for all processes were obtained either by our own measurements [36,48] or by applying literature values (

Table 3. Some sustainability measures of diatom biomass vs. standard fish feed. Data from (a) [36] and (b) [49,57,58,59]. Prefix + means emission of CO₂, while—prefix is CO₂ capture.

Variable	Carbon Footprint (kg CO2 kg−1 Salmon)		Field Area (m2 kg−1 Salmon)		Primary Production Area (m2 Sea kg−1 Salmon)		Energy Use (MJ kg−1 Algae)
	Standard Feed	Algae Biomass	Standard Feed	Algae Biomass	Standard Feed	Algae Biomass	Standard Feed	Algae Biomass
Compressing gas, (a)								66.1
LED illumination (a)								11.0–20.0
Drum filter (a)								1.26
Centrifuge (a)								0.48
Pumps (a)								0.2
Nitrogen uptake (a)		+0.05						0.49
Phosphate uptake (a)		+0.01						0.004
Capture by algae (a)		−2.2		0.0037
Loss to air (a)		+0.1
Loss to sea (a)		−0.1
Fish meal (b)	0.36		0.0075		58.75		5.25
Fish oil (b)	0.13		0.0027		21.15		1.89
SPC (b), (a)	0.68		0.7917				1.14
Wheat gluten (b)	0.36		0.311				6.216
Wheat (b)	0.06		0.171				0.51
Rapeseed oil (b)	0.13		0.443				1.138
Soya Lecithin (b)	0.02		0.024				0.035
Choline chloride (b)	0.003		0.025				0.025
Vitamin premix (b)	0.01		0.01				0.01
Phosphate (b)	0.01		0.0125				0.0125
Carop. Pink (b)	0.0003		0.0003				0.0003
L-lysine (b)	0.0003		0.0003				0.0003
DL-Methionine (b)	0.005		0.0005				0.0005
Mineral premix (b)	0.003		0.025				0.025
Vitamin C (b)	0.003		0.025				0.025
Sum	+1.7728	−2.14	1.857	0.0037	79.9		26.5826	79.53/88.0

). We partly followed the instructions in ISO 14044 [56]. In addition to our own quantifications, we retrieved information on the sustainability of algae cultivation, crop use in feed and salmon aquaculture from relevant scholarly sources and industry reports (see Table 3). Not mentioned in Table 3 is that NOx is taken up in the culture and utilized by algae as a partial N source [48]. It is clear that this is not a complete sustainability or LCA analysis, but serves the purpose to perform initial investigations of the main sustainability drivers.

When sustainability is judged from operative processes involved in biomass production to be applied as whole fish feed (only algae in feed, Table 3), it immediately appears that the electricity energy consumption here is much higher than for standard feed, i.e., 26.58 vs. 79.53 MJ kg⁻¹. However, in our reactor system, electricity comes from the ERG device, originating from recycled fume heat, and the main sustainably gain is that the CO₂ footprint is negative (Table 3). Then, if production is to be doubled, assuming this takes place along the linear part of the production vs. the light intensity relation [60], this will cause a doubling in energy demand as artificial light. The total energy use will then amount to 88 MJ kg⁻¹. The largest single factor in the energy used in algae production is related to compressing gas (Table 3). This has triggered a sub-project aimed at generating turbulence with less energy use. Further, the CO₂ footprint is much higher for standard feed (+1.78) than for algae feed (−2.14). This reflects that the C in algae biomass components comes from factory fumes. Be aware that these values are at the user/aquaculturist gate. The field and primary production area is also much lower for algae than for standard feed. Not mentioned in Table 3 is that algae feed production also causes emission of O₂ (+2.1 kg O₂ kg⁻¹ algae produced).

3. Discussion

3.1. Diatom Project, CO₂ Uptake and Sustainability

Our pilot analysis of the sustainability of production of standard salmon feed vs. whole algae feed shows that the CO₂ footprint is substantially lower for microalgae feed than for standard feed, while the use of (Norwegian renewable hydro) electric energy is higher for algae. The fact that today’s applied salmon feed is the least sustainable link in the aquaculture life cycle has frequently been stressed [59,61]. The negative CO₂ footprint of microalgae feed appears from the fact that all synthesis of organic biomass by photoautotrophs follows the capture of fume CO₂, and therefore makes microalgae/diatoms a prime candidate for the sustainable production of salmon feed. This is with the reservation that more complete sustainability/LCA analysis has the potential to modify this.

One factor not discussed in detail here is that the diatom cultivation project at Finnfjord also implements circular economy elements. This includes the fact that the CO₂ that algae capture is reuse of CO₂ from the smelting process, i.e., use of fume CO₂ that otherwise would have been emitted to the atmosphere. Further cultivation takes place in seawater used as cooling medium in the factory energy recovery system and electricity to run compressor, pumps and illumination come from the ERG system. Another important advantage connected to the use of microalgae as/in salmon feed is that production of biomass can be done occupying small areas (Table 3) in coastal areas.

From our analysis, it can be concluded that microalgae/diatom cultivation can pave the way for substantially more sustainable biomass (fish feed) production in tandem with simultaneous local CO₂ capturing, as already frequently stated in the literature [28,29,30,31,32,33]. There are, however, certain drawbacks connected to this, i.e., especially to the energy use when cultivating algae. Large reactors will need extra illumination that draws large amounts of electricity, and compressor “force” is needed to inject fume/CO₂ gas mist into the culture. The usefulness of algae as a feed ingredient will also depend on the chemical composition of the biomass. Lipids, especially EPA, are already high, and all essential amino acids are present, but improvements can be made by increasing CO₂ pressure, since this causes an increase in the omega-3 and amino acid content [62,63].

One of the largest problems the salmon industry currently faces is salmon lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infestation [46]. Our produced feed has, as mentioned, lice-deterring abilities [40], and ongoing new experiments have indicated a reduction in lice infestation of up to 50%. A question here is if salmon can digest algae feed without negative consequences on growth, physiology, and health. Our experiments have not so far revealed any negative effects [40], as also observed by, e.g., [64].

The “lice effect” has the potential to improve the sustainability of salmon aquaculture, as well as to influence the market price of algae feed positively. The CO₂ footprint and energy values in Table 3 are at the fish farmers’ gate. Beyond this gate, some CO₂ will be respired by salmon in the pens. An important overlooked fact is that northern sea areas are constantly undersaturated with respect to CO₂ [65]. Some CO₂ must therefore reside in the sea and will not end up in the atmosphere, i.e., a question in further complete Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analyses must be if this influences the sustainability of salmon aquaculture.

In addition to the scientific outcomes, this project also targets a sustainability strategy aimed at simultaneously achieving certain economic, social, and environmental goals. The project has, since it started in 2015, included multiple stakeholders, this in a context that enables cooperation of different institutional and individual entities to achieve a shared vision. As outlined in [66], adopting a sustainable purpose that transcends beyond profits enabled the company to create a shared value and thus begin the sustainability journey.

The project initially received partial government funding on the local and regional levels, on the basis that it could provide potential solutions to issues pertaining to high CO₂ outputs in the metallurgical processes in northern Norway as well as feed supply problems in the aquaculture industry. After an initial proof of concept, the initial partners set on a path of engaging the interest of major entities comprising societal and financial stakeholders, customers, business partners and employees and silent stakeholders—through organizations that represent them. The stakeholders and the reasons for engagement are outlined in

Table 4. Identified stakeholders, engagement activity and focus.

Stakeholder	Activity	Focus for Stakeholder Engagement
Societal Stakeholders	Press releases. Negotiations on contributions to regional development Formal presentations on industrial challenge, proof of concept and long-term environmental impacts Open days and visits for the local community (schools, politicians, etc.)	Reputation development as a transparent project with potential impact on local knowledge and skills development, and viability as a sustainability project within an evolving company with purpose aspirations.
Financial stakeholders	Formal presentations on industrial challenge, proof of concept and long-term environmental and societal impacts Open days and visitations	Obtain funding for the next milestones and gain governmental endorsement.
Potential customers	Negotiations on best viable means of salmon fodder production with adequate nutritional benefits	Demonstrate supply chain viability and potential impact on both aquaculture and manufacturing
Business partners	Formal presentations on industrial challenge and long-term shared impacts Workshops and seminars	Demonstrate commitment to collaboratively achieving a greener future
Employees	Internal memos and employee mobilization on the impact of current business practices and future directions	Create a sense of belonging in the drive towards making a change in the industry
Silent stakeholders	Negotiations on best possible outcome for environment and society, taking responsible practices, rules, and regulations into account	Demonstrate commitment to positively impacting the silent stakeholders

.

These activities and the related focus demonstrate that the initial project partners were able to understand and highlight potential added value for stakeholders if the project were to reach an industrial scale. However, to reach the next milestones in the proof of concept, the project partners needed to attract funding from key stakeholders and support from all affected stakeholders. This approach proved partly successful, with additional funding received from national levels (NOK 93 million, i.e., 8.3 million USD) and increased active partnership from new partners. In addition, the local newspapers have since published several positive articles strongly promoting the societal and environmental benefits of this method of microalgae cultivation and CO₂ sequestration and utilization. These efforts have also led to positive support from the local community and non-governmental organizations, reinforcing its social license to operate and enabling successful microalgae production at pre-industrial quantities.

3.2. Sustainable Stakeholder Value

So far, the results have shown that microalgae production performed as described here has the potential to create nutritious biomass in a sustainable way. Nonetheless, it also has the potential to create other kinds of value for stakeholders in line with the circular economy and sustainable innovation principles. For Finnfjord AS, the move towards the circular economy was largely motivated by sustainability issues within the company. For example, the following statement by the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) illustrates the company’s view:

“We said we are going to be the first ferrosilicon producer without CO₂ emissions. What we are doing here is straining nature: we are consuming a lot of resources, we are consuming a lot of electricity, we are emitting a lot of CO₂, sulfur dioxide. there is a certain amount of environmental pressure when you are producing ferrosilicon.”

The realization of the impact the company had on its operating environment led them to explore ideas related to reducing such impacts. By the time the microalgae project was proposed by the University, the company had already set up an ERG system that was delivering positive results. They had discovered that moving towards sustainable solutions could provide win–win situations not just across the environmental dimension, but also across societal and economical dimensions, upon the engagement of stakeholders to develop a full-scale microalgae cultivation project for use in (or as) fish feed production. In this context, ref. [66] identified the following sets of value.

3.2.1. Environmental Value

With regard to environmental value, microalgae cultivation in this case deals with the elimination of waste and pollution and closing resource loops. This deals with reduced greenhouse gas emissions in metallurgical processes. It is also worth noting that the introduction of CO₂ into the microalgae cultivation value chain has the potential to lead to a reduced carbon footprint in feed.

3.2.2. Social Value

In the context of the microalgae cultivation project, the social value deals with responsibility and accountability actions to alleviate the pressure on finite resources which society depends upon. Moreover, it can provide jobs, create new knowledge, and improve skills and competence for the local workforce. It also has the potential to provide access to research and education for communities.

3.2.3. Economic Value

Through the development of a profitable, scalable, and licensable means of connecting metallurgical processes with aquaculture, new products lines can be developed leading to increased revenues and improved market growth.

For salmon aquaculture in Norway to maintain the present level of production or undergo an expansion, it must adopt environmental, economic, and societally sustainable methods. Also important is the implementation of universal criteria that evaluate/quantify sustainability in both traditional and novel/more environmentally friendly ways. Microalgae mass cultivation is therefore an obvious method that, in addition to enabling sustainably produced fish feed, also contributes to overall positive climate actions. Ref. [49] reported that microalgae and mesopelagic fish were the only probable future sources that sustainably could form the basis for further expansion of salmon aquaculture. At present we do not have our own reliable diatom feed production cost estimates, but important to the economy of production of diatom biomass as salmon feed is a shortage in the global food supply as an immediate consequence of the Ukraine war. This has led to a steady increase in salmon feed price. As of the time of writing (November 2023), it is ca. 15 NOK (USD 1.40) and expected to increase steadily [67]. This, and the supposed added value from lice reduction by using diatom biomass as an ingredient in the feed, will increase the market value of our feed.

In complex innovation and development projects, it is helpful to lower financial risk by establishing early revenue streams. In the scenario described in this paper, there are several possibilities to produce revenue and spin-offs before reaching the full-scale production of feed ingredients based off diatoms or other microalgae. There are currently manifold value-added products and applications that can be obtained based on diatom biomass and cultures. Since they are single celled, the diatoms can be used as cellular factories comprising high levels of specific compounds with bioactivities that can be important for human and animal health such as lipids [68], EPA [69,70], carotenoids such as fucoxanthin [71] and diadioxanthine, β-carotene, chrysolaminarin [72], anti-fouling agents [73] and various nutraceutically relevant components [74]. Red pigments that can be used as a colorant in fish feed are sought after and have excessively high market prices. This especially accounts for astaxanthin that is allowed in synthetic form in fish feed [75]. It has also been shown in many studies that diatoms are rich sources of a broad range of other potentially clinically relevant bioactivities such as anti-tuberculosis, anti-inflammatory, anti-bacterial, anti-cancer, antioxidant, and anti-diabetes [17,18,76,77,78].

Human activity in our current anthropocene [79] has led to huge degrees of environmental and social vulnerability. Floods, droughts, poverty, diseases, and hunger are abound worldwide, and such effects of human activity have been an increasing cause of concern since the 1970s [80]. The Brundtland Report, released in 1987, has pushed forward the issue of sustainable development—meeting present needs without compromising the needs of future generations [81]. The urgency of the matter has led to questions and reflections on how long the current economic paradigm of business can be sustained as usual and what we can do to move beyond it [82,83,84,85].

One such way of moving beyond “business as usual” is through the practice of the Circular Economy (CE). This is an approach that was conceptually introduced to scholars as early as the year 1966 by [86] to replace the traditional and linear “extract-produce-use-dump” flow of materials and energy in the modern economic systems [87]. The concept of the CE has mostly been developed, led, and popularized by practitioners such as The Ellen MacArthur Foundation and policy makers such as The European Commission. The general and idealized practice is to eliminate the idea of waste by designing products and business processes that make use of waste and emissions outputs at the end of the system to create valuable products [88]. This system solves the problems of material scarcity (caused by increased demands) and the usage of virgin inputs into the system leading to resource depletion [89]. In addition, it creates a sociocultural and socioeconomic shift by enabling a shared responsibility for enabling sustainability within a community [90]. Further, it has the potential to lead to new markets, improved reputation, and reduced costs for businesses [87], therefore, creating a win–win situation along Elkington’s triple-bottom line concept of people, planet, and profit [91]. The manufacturing sector is one that is especially plagued by the linear “extract-produce-use-dump”, or quite simply the “take-make-dispose” flow as The Ellen MacArthur Foundation describes it [92].

Industrial processes in their current state are resource-intensive and account for one third of global energy use. About 70% of this energy is supplied by fossil fuels and it is widely accepted that these will most likely remain a major source of energy for the next 50 years [93]. Ref. [94] in their report outlined the appalling realization that 40% of worldwide CO₂ emissions emanate from industry. Three years later, in December 2015, the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris then agreed on a long-term goal of keeping average warming well below 2°C, setting two long-term goals in mind: first, through a reduction in emissions as soon as possible and, second, through a goal of net greenhouse gas neutrality in the second half of the century. Considering that 62% of industrial greenhouse gases since the dawn of the industrial revolution can be attributed to the activities of 100 active carbon majors and 8 non-extant ones [95], the need for a shift away from “business as usual” is long overdue and cannot be overemphasized. Ref. [96] in their paper argue that in fact, it is a moral duty of carbon majors to decrease and eventually end their harmful activities and processes, with an aim to also make reparations to societies they have harmed. Nevertheless, it is the collective responsibility of industry and the international community to contribute to achieving outcomes as grand as those stipulated in the Paris Agreement.

To reduce CO₂ emissions, there are multiple ways to approach the issue. In order of priority as suggested by [97], the first and most obvious method is to avoid using carbon in industrial processes, hence, creating environmentally benign conditions. This can be done through business model and process innovation by substituting non-renewable resources with renewable resources [88]. However, considering that the standards of living in industrialized countries are to be kept stable or improved over time, avoiding carbon usage in industrial processes would prove insufficient to reach climate goals in time. This brings us to the second method of reducing CO₂ emissions—usage. Carbon Capture and Usage (CCU) is a viable alternative that follows the “create value from waste” archetype suggested by [88], where the idea is to turn captured CO₂, as a renewable feedstock, into valuable products. The third strategy to reduce CO₂ emissions is storage. Carbon capture and storage involves the capture of otherwise unavoidable carbon dioxide “from fuel combustion or industrial processes, the transport of this CO₂ via ship or pipeline, and… its permanent storage deep underground in geological formations” [98].

So far, despite extensive government incentives, regulatory drivers and promises pushing for the mitigation of large volumes of CO₂ through storage, the high cost associated with CCS as well as other political and legal issues associated with it has impacted its large-scale deployment. These challenges present a chance for CCU to break new ground in contributing to the drive to reach climate protection targets. The adjacent priority is to develop technologies and methods that are technically feasible, environmentally, and socially sound, and economically attractive to have them recognized as sustainable CO₂ reduction methods.

There are many examples of CCU technologies and methods funded by different entities around the globe, from the use of CO₂ as a chemical feedstock to produce urea, cyclic carbonates and salicylic acid [97] to the use of CO₂ in microalgae cultivation systems [99]. It is important to note that a key factor lies in how the produced biomass is applied/processed. According to [99], high biomass productivity, the opportunity to use non-arable land, salt water/waste streams as a nutrient supply and flue gases as a CO₂ input source has the potential to make microalgae cultivation lean towards sustainable production—especially when it is placed within a circular economy construct. A novel microalgae cultivation system is one of such CCU methods being pioneered at Finnfjord AS.

The project, as detailed in this paper, involves the company moving away from the “business-as-usual” scenario, using a sustainability-oriented business model innovation that is proactive. This is a fundamentally different approach that creates room for commercial businesses to be truly sustainable. Proactive strategies embed sustainability principles in the core logic of the business. They achieve high degrees of impact, because the value proposition, delivery/creation and capture systems are reevaluated to achieve the greatest possible social and environmental benefits. As a result of circular practices within the company, the key idea is to create value by producing a high-quality microalgal biomass that can be embedded into the highly significant Norwegian aquaculture industry, replacing non-sustainable components of the fish feed. This has the potential to create new profit pools and a competitive advantage for the company, and on a wider scale, create lasting benefits for a more resilient economy.

3.3. Synergies between Environmental, Economic, and Societal Aspects of Carbon Capture and Utilization at the Micro, Meso and Macro Levels

The previous section discussed the need for stakeholder collaboration on sustainable business models and the importance of such collaboration for a shift to a circular economy. This section elaborates on these themes by discussing how carbon capture and utilization through the production of algae-based fish feed can contribute to increased fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals at the micro, meso, and macro levels.

3.3.1. Macro-Level: Global Policy

The Human Development Report 2020 points out the interconnected nature of the global environmental, economic, and societal challenges the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are designed to address, and provides recommendations regarding how to address these challenges. The report emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary stakeholder collaboration: “We must reorient our approach from solving discrete, siloed problems to navigating multidimensional, interconnected and increasingly universal predicaments” [100]. These formulations indicate the necessity of recognizing that there is a cluster of environmental, economic, and social problems that all must be resolved for any separate problem to be resolved. The report provides explicit recommendations regarding how these challenges should be addressed: “Decoupling economic growth from emissions and material use is key to easing pressures on the planet while improving living standards” [100]. A circular economy realized through stakeholder collaboration on sustainable business models exemplified by the CCU project is a response to this challenge. Fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals are criteria of climate adaptation success. The level of fulfilment of the SDGs is quantifiable—we can measure how many indicators of the Sustainable Development Goals are fulfilled to a minimum level. Pedro Conceição, director of the Human Development Report office, discusses the SDGs as a quantifiable measure in “Human Development and the SDGs”. He states: “The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a globally agreed tool for assessing development progress” [101]. Conceição further suggests:

“There might be a case for using the HDI [human development index] as one of a very few measures to summarize progress towards the 2030 Agenda. Many of the SDGs relate directly to the HDI: poverty, health, education, and work, for example. Others—such as peace and hunger—relate indirectly. And if the HDI is moving in the right direction, it is rather likely that those SDGs are progressing too” [101].

3.3.2. Meso/Micro-Level: Firm-Level and Industrial Symbiosis

The carbon capture and usage technology developed in collaboration between UiT the Arctic University of Norway and Finnfjord AS is an example of promotion of environmental, economic, and societal values at a meso/micro level. The technology can, on a firm level, contribute to the pursuit of increasing the fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals and contribute to maintaining Norway’s high Planet Pressure Adjusted HDI ranking. By replacing fish feed based on scarce resources such as wild-caught fish, or environmentally problematic soy-products, Norwegian aquaculture industries can increase the Planet Pressure Adjusted HDI while maintaining high volumes of aquaculture products. A potential complement of the algae-based fish feed production to include production of algae-based biofuels could add additional environmental benefits. The use of algae-based fish feed instead of fish feed based on wild-caught fish or soy can reduce the risk of conflicts between the SDGs Good Health and Well Being (SDG 3), Clean Energy (SDG 7), and Climate Action (SDG 13). Good Health and Well Being require sufficient sources of nutrition. Good Health and Well Being can be achieved to a significant degree by giving people access to enough omega-3-rich marine products and by sustainment of a temperature range that allows human beings to flourish. Climate Action and Clean Energy are made possible by use of biofuels rather than fossil-fuels. The collaboration between UiT the Arctic University of Norway and Finnfjord AS is an example of an Arctic Water–Energy–Food Nexus initiative. “The Nexus Approach”, launched in 2011, is “a cross-sectoral and multi-level approach to deal with complex sustainability challenges” [102]. A “Nexus” is defined as “one or more connections linking two or more things” [103]. Ref. [104] maintains that “the food-energy-water nexus emerged as a useful concept to describe, address and balance complex and interrelated natural resource systems, user goals and interests”. The Water–Energy–Food Nexus approach can contribute to the accelerated implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. It could reduce trade-offs between the SDGs and strengthen synergies between the SDGs through the interconnected management of water, energy, and food resources. The motivation for introducing the Water–Energy–Food Nexus approach is the insight that “Conventional policy and decision-making in “silos” (…) needs to give way to an approach that reduces trade-offs and builds synergies across sectors—a nexus approach” [105]. The Nexus Approach hence aligns with the integrated approach to sustainable development that motivates interdisciplinary stakeholder collaboration, and the introduction of the Planet Pressure Adjusted HDI. While the literature includes extensive theorizing around the Nexus concept, the implementation and upscaling of Nexus solutions are very limited [102]. To succeed with efforts to implement the Nexus approach, stakeholders must find means of efficient communication. Ref. [106] notes the challenge of engaging in interdisciplinary collaboration to develop Nexus solutions: such collaboration will require “the rethinking and reshuffling” of “the Water–Energy–Food Nexus disciplines, in order to craft an academe suitable for the gigantic task ahead” [106]. The European Commission stresses the “importance of working at the local level, applying local solutions and decentralized approaches, as well as inclusion of social aspects” and “the importance of implementation, i.e., of going from vision to action in the implementation of a nexus” [107]. Major Nexus challenges are faced at local levels, and there is a widely acknowledged knowledge gap regarding the local implementation of Nexus approaches. The growing Nexus research emphasizes that there is an increasing demand for water, energy and food that must be jointly addressed by numerous stakeholders from a diverse range of disciplines to meet local development challenges, including those facing small businesses. The “silo-mentality” mentioned by the Human Development Report 2020 prevails, however. Research from a social science angle, from an economic political angle, as well as research regarding methods for implementation on a local level is necessary to put the Nexus approach into operation. The collaboration between UiT and Finnfjord AS exemplifies such sorely needed cross-disciplinary stakeholder collaboration at micro, meso, and macro levels to achieve implementations and upscaling.

IEA predicts CCUS (Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage) actions in 2050 at a level of 20% relative to today’s emission [108]. Possibly 50% of this, in terms of CO₂ footprint, will end up as Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU). From a circular economy and industry profitability viewpoint, CCU has obvious economic benefits relative to CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage). In the context of Finnfjord, CCU represents the conversion of CO₂ factory fumes or other C sources to economic commodities. CCS is expensive to operate and business models that implement CCS in, e.g., large heavy CO₂-polluting industries are not present. The development of both CCS and CCU cases will thus depend heavily on public strategies and financing, in addition to a substantially high risk of sustainable in-kind financing. CCU is more economically sustainable and will to a higher degree be able to attract local financing. Furthermore, it is advantageous if CCU can be advanced complementary to CCS technologies in the same industries, thus representing some relief on the risk level of the investments. This way, the potential of CCU in local circular economy solutions is that it can supplement CCS and function as a driver that can secure overall environmental as well as economic sustainability. However, an assessment of the compatibility of CCU technologies with the SDGs is as necessary as it is overdue. Hence, this paper elucidates how CCU might contribute to or hinder the delivery of the SDGs (United Nations Sustainable Development Goals). By comparing CCUs against the SDGs, it can be concluded that, under certain conditions, they might deliver contributions to several SDGs. However, CCU needs to be evaluated in terms of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [109]. It is clear that by comparing CCUs against the SDGs, under certain conditions, CCU can deliver contributions to several SDGs, especially within the context of energy transition processes, and in societal advancements linked to technological progress.

The microalgae mass cultivation at Finnfjord AS is technologically unique relative to the large part of other initiatives. The Finnfjord concept, therefore, has the imprint of innovation, i.e., increased risk on investments. The project is quite promising, but engaging in high-risk initiatives demands large persistent capital investments without any guarantee that the project will end up profitable. For this reason, several successful environmental and business cases in other businesses remain “unborn”. To obtain increased industrial “green” growth, it is therefore important that public financing is generous, with special focus on high-risk cases. Here also must be taken consequence of that relevant research concludes that most economic growth demands persistent massive governmental investments, while also neglecting the fact that numerous initiatives fails. Further new strategies handling high-risk investments in innovations would be highly appreciated, e.g., by balancing financial interests of business and the interests of employees and the development of a strategy balancing multiple systemic risks based on corporate social responsibility [110].

The biomass production at Finnfjord AS is based on a local reduction in CO₂ emissions, while the overall reduction in CO₂ footprint happens because the production of algae-feed replaces feed ingredients with higher footprints. There are large uncertainties attached to, e.g., future CO₂ taxes. Environmental pros and cons relating to this can only be weighed by thorough LCA analysis in combination with other parameters not usually included in LCA. One example here is O₂ production, that to our knowledge is not normally valuated. This is, though, included in our project, but it is complicated by the fact that there are several LCA standards and that none of them truly mimic “the real world” [111]. The backbone of the announced climate actions is therefore partly missing, making it difficult to find the course to navigate after and slowing down development of novel sustainable industrial processes. Performing research work is therefore an obvious Research & Development (R&D) engagement by universities, preferably in close cooperation with CCU-practicing industries [112].

It is a fact that investing in R&D increases economic growth, and simultaneous focus on the effects as well as industrial productivity gains of innovations boosts this [113]. Governmental tasks imposed upon Norway’s Universities include environmental, societal, and economic considerations of the “new green” future. Study programs at, e.g., UiT The Arctic University of Norway (that is a partner in the project) identifies and addresses this. In addition, and though with a certain degree of duality against environmental protection aspects, new “green” industrial processes demand technological development that again relies on innovation. Innovation is as stated an economic driver. Vice versa, the main factor fueling innovation is R&D, especially if it is also based on the knowledge of industrial processes and demands. To achieve consistent progress here we are convinced that it is necessary to establish rigid R&D communication lines between industry and, e.g., universities, and practicing frequent industry-relevant master and PhD programs and industry/University (both ways) mentor arrangements. UiT—The Arctic University of Norway—partnered with Finnfjord AS in 2014 with the plan to implement a microalgae mass production initiative, utilizing the factory fume CO₂ at Finnfjord AS [36]. This has up through the years resulted in the co-hosting of several research projects financed by regional governmental funds, Innovation Norway, and the Norwegian Research Council, in addition to Finnfjord AS and UiT. The UiT activities at the factory draw heavily on established industrial process resources, and UiT also has a “campus-lab” with student accommodations operative at Finnfjord AS, working with aspects (also interdisciplinary ones) of algae mass production and especially problems related to upscaling. The actual factors that lead to success when universities and industries cooperate are still unclear and debated by scholars. The success drivers in our project is a common goal to offer solutions to the same problems, i.e., improving the sustainability of ferrosilicon production and aquaculture, while at the same time creating new products guided by university and industrial process competence [114]. In addition, it must be stressed that geographic proximity (1 h) is an important positive factor in our project. Additionally, the engagement and contribution of people with ambitious research motives and environmental values is highly important.

In the current industry–university cooperation, it is our conviction that partnership drives innovation that is to the benefit of both industry and academia, and that success breeds success. The immediate gain for UiT is an “academization” of new processes emerging from the meeting boundaries between factory employees and scientists/students, where needs for new products and optimization and processes emerge. The gain for the industry is the implantation of new ideas and this has also resulted in many new projects. At present, we have had >20 Master and PhD students attached to the project. University–Industry cooperation is, in the new “green” perspective, increasingly important, and it is in the interests of society that such collaborations are successfully implemented and (economically) encouraged by policy makers and politicians. Such cooperations should be monitored closely, considering the scale of the partners where horizontal communication is based on flexibility, honesty and awareness concerning both economic, technological, and academic disciplines.

3.4. Circular Economy: One Step towards Strong Sustainability

This section explores the production of ecological fish feed at Finnfjord from the perspective of strong sustainability. The distinction between weak and strong sustainability emanates from work on environmental economics in the 1970′s and could be conceptualized as a distinction between two competing paradigms: “The weak sustainability paradigm is rooted in the neoclassical, traditional concept of capital and utility—measured as aggregated income. The strong sustainability paradigm, on the other hand, comes from the tradition of the natural sciences, defining sustainability as preservation of the physical stock of the different forms of natural capital, and consistent with the ecological economics view of a socio-economic system constrained by a finite environment” [115]. This further strengthens the argument for why an exploration of the CCU-strategy at Finnfjord from the perspective of strong sustainability is necessary.

The SDGs are under fire. By attempting to cover all that is good and desirable in society, these targets have ended up as vague, weak, or meaningless. As a remedy, ref. [116] suggests a model for sustainable development based on three moral imperatives, all given the same priority: satisfying human needs, ensuring social equity, and respecting environmental limits. In contrast, we argue that respecting environmental limits must have priority, as natural capital is fundamental to human and non-human existence (or non-substitutable). For all their merits, the SDG and the HDI indexes, respectively, do not mention the environment. More precisely, the reality of environmental limits and the potential drawbacks of ever-increasing economic growth have not been firmly placed on the sustainable development agenda [116]. Accordingly, management of marine resources, globally and in Norway, strives to achieve sustainable development by balancing resource extraction, biodiversity conservation, and societal justice (cf. Section 3.3.1 above). However, these three conceptual paradigms tend to stand as monolithic pillars in their approaches to sustainability, namely: rationalization/efficiency, conservation, and community. Consequently, such un-integrated approaches tend to lead to management objectives and policy goals in conflict (cf. discussion on conflicting SDGs in Section 3.3.2). These conflicts are often rooted in competing economic, ecological, and social values. This section argues that the only way to resolve these kinds of conflicts is to acknowledge the primacy of fundamental environmental goods, also named natural capital, over human capital when promoting human wellbeing.

From the perspective of ecological economics, the key choice is whether one believes that natural capital—i.e., the range of functions the natural environment provides for humans and for itself [117]—should be afforded special protection, or whether it can be substituted by human, or produced, capital:

“The weak sustainability paradigm … assumes substitutability between human-made capital and natural capital, as long as the aggregated income does not decrease over time. The proponents of the strong sustainability paradigm, on the other hand, have raised questions about the substitutability of natural capital. They stress the need to preserve the stock of natural capital in order to ensure a non-decreasing flow of income for future generations [118]. According to the weak sustainability perspective, any form of capital—including all forms of natural capital—is ‘negotiable’ as far as the aggregated income does not decrease. Trade-offs between economic activity and the quality of the environment seem unlimited according to this view” [115].

This is the reason economic growth needs to be decoupled from material use if we are going to succeed in easing the pressures on the planet, as stated in Section 3.3.2.

Due to the seemingly unlimited trade-offs between economic activity and the quality of the environment under weak sustainability, environmental history documents an unlimited number of conflicts at the “commodity frontiers” [119]. Since the industrial revolution, a fossil economy of linear exploitation, production and consumption has brought the world to the brink of resource depletion and a global extinction of habitats, species, and ecosystems [120]. Finnfjord AS forms part of fossil capitalism, a unique economic form due to its non-regenerative character: through its production formula Money-Commodity-Money [120], it slowly transforms the entire natural system into non-nature, or money [121]. The primary goal of the green transition in industry must therefore be to secure its own (and the rest of the planet’s) natural capital. To obtain this, we must make our economy less dependent on the export of oil and gas, and—based on the best of Norwegian traditions within industry and energy—build a circular economy bottom-up. The public–private R&D project at Finnfjord AS contributes to this task, which is as much political as technological.

However, the industrial economy is not circular; it is entropic. It produces polluting waste, and it requires new supplies of energy and materials extracted from the old and new commodity frontiers mentioned by [119]. The concept of a circular economy implies that material resources could be increasingly sourced from within the economy, reducing environmental impact by increasing the reuse and recycling of materials. The aim would be to minimize waste and move towards a closed-loop economy. However, this socio-technical imaginary has no relation to reality as revealed by biophysical, metabolic analysis: after all, the economy is embedded in physical realities. Estimates for the EU-27 economy are that only around 12% of the material input was recycled in 2019 [122]. These numbers testify to a circularity gap rather than a circular economy characterizing our industrial economies. Microeconomics is often taught in terms of what the economist Georgescu-Rogen called “the merry-go-round” between consumers and producers [119], a circular scheme in which producers put goods and services in the market at prices which consumers pay. However, the actual degree of the circularity of the industrial economy is very low, and it is probably decreasing as formerly biomass-based economies complete their transition to an industrial economy based on fossil fuels in India and Africa [123]. To sum up, “it is unlikely that a long-lasting, absolute decoupling of economic growth from environmental pressures and impacts can be achieved at the global scale; therefore, societies need to rethink what is meant by growth and progress and their meaning for global sustainability” [122].

A circular economy can reduce the impacts of production and consumption on biodiversity and climate. That is exactly the role of biological CCU in an expanded aquaculture life-cycle context, as presented in this article. But to fully appreciate this university–industry innovation project, we need to consider its socio-historical context. The Finnfjord ferrosilicon factory was built and developed within a political economy different from that of fossil capitalism. But this capitalism is not given by nature: it was shaped by a project of cultural and political modernization. Within this modernization, constitutional structures, the democratic inclusion of various religious groups and social popular movements, public education and compulsory schooling, the institutionalization of scientific research and technological expertise ran together and formed the basis of the Norwegian social model over a period from around 1814 until WWII (for a thorough analysis, see [124]). Eventually, this political economy was consolidated with the establishment of the Norwegian welfare state in the post-war period. After four decades of neoliberal economic hegemony [125], while facing a European crisis sparked by a fossil fuel war [126], this political economy needs to be strengthened to resist the fossil power circuit supporting an entropic economy. The collaborative initiative in the UiT-Finnfjord project leads by example here by showing industry the way out of an oil-dependent economy and into a green, circular, and oil-free future, thereby taking it one step further towards strong sustainability.

3.5. Viewing Algae-Based CCU through Environmental Virtue Ethics

In the following, we discuss how algae-based carbon capture and utilization (CCU) can be seen as a way to adjust production systems that provide us with consumer goods in such a way that they become more attuned to the environmental reality in which these operate. We do this from an environmental virtue ethics perspective and focus on the following topics: (1) human beings need to consume, but we should challenge our understanding of what is really necessary for us to live well; (2) we need to develop and use technology in order to flourish, but technology should not be viewed as a quick fix; (3) algae-based CCU is a promising technology that not only deals with carbon dioxide emissions in industry and unsustainable feedstuff use in aquaculture, but that also can, if it is seen as a part of a comprehensive approach, pave the way to more sustainable societies where human beings can flourish in a healthier environment.

3.5.1. Environmental Virtue Ethics and the Role of Environmental Goods

Environmental virtue ethics is often viewed as having started off with Thomas E. Hill Jr.’s paper “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments” [127], where Hill Jr. argued that those who are willing to destroy the natural environment or only value it in cost/benefit terms may lack traits or virtues that are key to our relationship with nature and towards others. Ref. [127] puts it this way: “The moral significance of preserving natural environments is not entirely an issue of rights and social utility, for a person’s attitude toward nature may be importantly connected with virtues or human excellences”. The essence of Hill Jr.’s argument still seeps through contemporary environmental virtue ethics. Ref. [128] suggests that “an adequate environmental ethic” requires “an ethic of character” that “provides guidance on what attitudes and dispositions we ought and ought not have regarding the environment”. This goes for both producers and consumers.

In an Aristotelian framework, external goods comprise one part of the equation of what constitutes the basis for human flourishing [129]. Environmental goods are part of external goods and are emphasized in environmental virtue ethics. The term ‘environmental goods’ is also used in economic theory, where it describes utility generated or produced by the natural environment [130]. The following is a good explanation offered by [130] of what is meant by ‘environmental goods’ both in economic theory and in environmental virtue ethics:

“The natural environment is the basis for all human life on earth because it provides the foundations for its existence, such as air to breathe, food, temperate climate which constitutes the atmosphere, and many more direct and indirect benefits. Through a variety of different channels, the natural environment favours human life. So, in terms of economic theory, the natural environment clearly generates utility for individuals both directly by providing accurate space for their existence, and indirectly by allowing for the production of consumption and investment goods, such as food and inorganic natural resources. Those indirect and direct benefits of the natural environment can be referred to as environmental goods”.

3.5.2. Assessing a Particular Technology by an External Goods Criterion

Sander [131] argues that we should make use of an ‘external goods criterion’ when we assess the sustainability of a technology. According to [131], this criterion is virtue-oriented, in the sense that it is based on virtues of sustainability and virtues of environmental stewardship, and can be stated as follows: “If a particular technology is likely to cause ecosystem disruption or undermine the production of goods necessary for the cultivation of moral agency, virtue, or human flourishing, then that technology misses the target of virtues of sustainability and stewardship” [131]. We argue that algae-based CCU can help to promote the production of goods necessary for human flourishing, and that the technology hits the targets of virtues of sustainability and stewardship.

3.5.3. Environmental Challenges of Ferrosilicon Production and Salmon Aquaculture, and the Potential of Algae-Based CCU

Both the steel industry (ferrosilicon production) and fed aquaculture (salmon farming) provide us with consumption goods that we need, but they usually do this at the expense of the environment’s ability to produce environmental goods. For instance, ferrosilicon production generates large quantities of carbon dioxide emissions. In the case of Finnfjord AS, the CO₂ emissions amount to approximately 300,000 tons per year. These emissions contribute to global warming, and thus threaten the environmental advantages of a temperate climate. There are also other toxic particles in the emissions from ferrosilicon production that threaten the environmental good of clean air. If either one of these environmental beneficial properties are severely degraded, human flourishing will be difficult to achieve.

Aquaculture also impacts the environment in a negative way. While the debate about salmon farming is usually concerned about the coastal areas where it takes place, the real impact is “the crops used in the feed … and the benthic area trawled” [57]. It is the production, processing and transport of feed ingredients that constitute the worst aspects of salmon farming climate-wise [57]. There are practical reasons why soy and other terrestrial crops are used as feed ingredients, i.e., they are important sources of protein and are available in large amounts at relatively low prices. Fish oil and fish meal are important sources of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAS) and can still be fished at reasonable financial costs. However, the demanded volumes cannot be met, largely due to overfishing leading to diminishing fish stocks [132,133]. Also, these feed ingredients are unsustainable from an environmental point of view [132,133]. The production of soy lays claim on land that could otherwise be left wild or be used to produce human food directly. The use of wild fish puts unnecessary pressure on already over-exploited marine ecosystems. The catch from fisheries can be, and increasingly is, also used directly as human food instead of an ingredient in fish feed. Both unnecessary land use and marine ecosystem overexploitation threaten the natural environment’s capacity for food production.

3.5.4. Promoting Environmental Goods Using Algae-Based CCU

The algae biomass which is produced at Finnfjord AS can replace a portion of these unsustainable feed ingredients. The Norwegian salmon farming industry currently lacks good options for reducing its carbon footprint and increasing the share of more sustainable feed ingredients—when the share of marine ingredients in fish feed is reduced, the common route is to replace it with soy protein produced in Brazil, which contributes to deforestation [57]. Using algae biomass instead of imported soy and wild fish will improve nature’s capability to produce environmental goods, on one hand, by taking pressure of marine ecosystems that are currently being overexploited [57], and on the other hand, by reducing the need to replace these marine ingredients with feed stuffs from terrestrial agriculture.

3.5.5. Algae-Based CCU: Not a Quick Fix but Part of a Comprehensive Approach

Even if some technologies have great potential for helping us to cover our needs in more sustainable ways, technological solutions by themselves will not be “the solution” or a quick fix that can solve all our ecological, agricultural and aquacultural challenges [131], although relying “narrowly on technology” to address those challenges is hubris—still, it is not “hubris to make use of technology as part of a comprehensive approach” [131]. “There isn’t a quick fix”, as Hursthouse [134] concurs, and continues “there is not any way in which the pollution can be halted and turned around without our forgoing a number of practices and activities that we, at least in the ‘developed’ nations, think of as enjoyments that are part of ordinary pleasant life”. We must, in other words, change our dispositions towards nature. Diatoms do indeed hold great potential. They are responsible for 20% of the global fixation of carbon dioxide, they can be used as food, feed, fuel, and for developing nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals [135]. All these areas of use are in some way related to how we can form societies where humans can live well. But if algae-based CCU technology is to be conducive to human flourishing, it must be thought of as something that we should use “intelligently and sensitively” to contribute to a sustainable program of the production of goods, and not as something that should enable us to continue with our present rate of consumption [136]. Algae-based CCU technology should not be framed as a quick fix to solve the problems related to carbon dioxide emissions in ferrosilicon production or to environmental issues pertaining to the aquaculture industry—as with all kinds of green technology, it should rather be considered part of a comprehensive approach that also includes changing our character. We must improve ourselves instead of merely relying on inventing new technology if we want to tackle the environmental challenges that we are facing.

3.5.6. Consumerism vs. Sustainable Consumption

If we agree that we must change our dispositions towards the natural environment, then where do we begin? Ref. [137] suggests that we look to Henry David Thoreau’s “rejection of two basic postulates of modern economic theory”, one “that our ultimate goals in life are arbitrary, mere “preferences” beyond the range of rationale debate”, and two, “that human beings have infinite desires for wealth, ownership, and consumption whose pursuit is limited only by scarcity of resources” [137]. Rejecting these postulates is to move away from an oversimplified view of human motivation and is a step towards the change needed to tackle the root cause of environmental degradation.

Ref. [138] distinguishes between our necessary consumption, and the forms of consumption that are disruptive, by employing the term ‘consumerism’. We must not let our consumption take the form of consumerism, Wenz [138] warns, where consumption is treated “as good in itself”. To help us navigate between necessary and disruptive consumption, we must let virtues of stewardship guide our consumption in such a way that “human productive and consumptive interests can be realized without compromising long-term ecological sustainability” [139].

If the preferences of consumers were only for the necessities, then all would be fine. But many of the “needs” of consumers are created within the economy [140]. According to Rolston [140], market economies are “wedded to mindless growth,” and these economies tend to “escalate desires”—luring individuals into needs that are “unmodulated and undisciplined by the realities of their environment”. These created needs, combined with the environment’s inability to tend to these, gives business a new duty to recycle valuable resources so that we take pressure off the natural environment [140]. Rethinking how we run factories and farm salmon is part of responding to this new duty. Rethinking how we use and consume products that contain ferrosilicon, as well as our reliance on farmed fish at the expense of environmental goods, is another.

The problem is not that we consume goods and services, because “human beings, like all living systems, require material throughput” [138]. Rather, the problem is that our current ways of producing and consuming goods have a negative impact on the well-being of other humans, non-human animals, and ecosystems. We must rethink what, and how much, is necessary for us to live well, while we keep on adjusting the way we produce consumptive goods in a more environmentally sustainable manner.

4. Conclusions

Microalgae (diatom) cultivation and application as fish feed has the potential to improve both the environmental, societal, and economic sustainability of salmon aquaculture. Today’s microalgae mass cultivation initiatives primarily produce high-cost niche products, and it is obvious that full large-scale cultivation can benefit from this, i.e., realizing the benefits from high price added on products. The potential main influences are

• The partial inclusion or whole replacement of nutritious microalgae biomass in salmon feed can have both fish and human health advantages and can improve the overall environmental sustainability of salmon aquaculture.
• If traditional salmon feed based on fish and terrestrial plant material is replaced by microalgae that takes up factory fume CO₂, a feed with substantially lower CO₂ footprint can be achieved. This since here CO₂ is not reduced, but does not increase either. Further gains in sustainability may be achieved in that algae feed can replace feed ingredients with a higher overall environmental footprint. Eventual removal of NOx from factory fumes is, though, largely permanent.
• The Carbon Capture and Utilization project in collaboration between UiT the Arctic University of Norway and Finnfjord AS is an example of a nexus that can contribute to operationalization of the SDGs.
• Carbon Capture and Utilization, and the inclusion of microalgae in fish feed, can significantly contribute to addressing environmental degradation and climate change, though they are not quick fixes.
• The implementation of these technologies must go hand in hand with a fundamental shift in consumption patterns, ensuring that our consumption does not unnecessarily disrupt the environment.