top of page
Search

Renewable Is Not the Same as Resilient. Your Feedstock Now Has to Pass Two Tests.

  • Writer: Felix Ghyczy
    Felix Ghyczy
  • Aug 12
  • 6 min read

Last week the Rhine fell to its lowest level since records began in 1880, with the gauge at Kaub dropping to around 24 centimetres and much of Europe sitting under a drought warning, as Insurance Journal reported. Most coverage read it as a logistics story. Barges cut their loads, freight rates on the river climbed, chemical shippers rerouted.

For anyone who decides what raw materials go into a product, the barges are the visible part. The signal underneath is that freshwater in Europe is becoming scarce and contested, and that reaches further up the supply chain than shipping. It reaches into which feedstocks are safe to build on. A drought year is when a company finds out whether its bio based programme is actually resilient, or only renewable.

The push into bio based is strategic, not only environmental. The Draghi report on European competitiveness made cutting dependence on imported raw materials and inputs a priority, and bio based materials are one of the ways the sector answers it, sourcing feedstock in Europe instead of importing oil based inputs. But swapping a dependence on imported oil for a dependence on European rainfall is not the resilience that strategy is reaching for.



Two tests every feedstock has to pass

A sustainability manager choosing a raw material is really applying two tests at once. The first is a compliance test: does the material stand up on ESG and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The second is a commercial test: is it safe from scarcity and sharp moves in price.

Bio based has a way of being treated as a single green tick that clears the first test and is assumed to clear the second. Water is where that assumption breaks. A water hungry crop can fail both tests at the same time, and a drought is the year the two failures arrive together.



Test one: ESG and the SDGs

The crops that dominate EU bio based feedstock, maize, sugar beet and wheat, carry large water footprints. Using Mekonnen and Hoekstra's peer reviewed dataset, producing one tonne of wheat takes roughly 1,800 cubic metres of water on the global average, one tonne of maize about 1,200, and one tonne of fresh sugar beet about 130. Most of that is green water, rainfall, so in a wet year the crop looks cheap on water.

The exposure hides in the blue water portion, the freshwater drawn from rivers and aquifers. That runs to around 340 cubic metres per tonne for wheat and 80 for maize on the global average, and higher for irrigated crops in southern Europe. And here is the trap: in a dry year, when the rain fails, the crop needs more irrigation from exactly the freshwater pool that everyone else is fighting over.

That freshwater draw is the ESG problem. It runs into SDG 6, clean water, because irrigation competes with drinking water. It runs into SDG 2 and SDG 15, because the crop occupies arable land that could grow food. On a datasheet the feedstock reads as renewable. Under an audit of where its water and land actually come from, it is harder to defend.



Test two: scarcity and price

The same water footprint is also a supply risk, and it shows up as lost yield and volatile price in exactly the years a business cannot absorb it. The 2022 European drought, which the Commission's science service called the worst in 500 years, cut EU grain maize production by 27% in a single year, according to Eurostat. This year the pattern reached sugar beet: official EU forecasts written before the drought fully hit the crop already pointed to output down about 8% on the year, with parts of southern Germany running roughly a third below the previous season, Cropli reported.

When water is short, it is allocated, not shared evenly. In September 2024 the UK designated datacentres as critical national infrastructure, alongside energy and water. In July 2026 the water industry warned that because datacentres now sit in that category, drought restrictions would fall on households rather than on the datacentres, whose cooling demand had not been factored into regional water plans. A single large datacentre can draw up to around 19 million litres of water a day, and thermal power generation and steel making sit ahead of agriculture in the same queue. Freshwater is being rationed across industries, and crops are near the back of the line. A feedstock whose cost and availability swing with the rain is a feedstock you cannot plan a product around.



Why algae is built to pass both

Algae is interesting here because it sidesteps the water and land competition rather than sitting inside it. It grows on saline, brackish and waste water, on non arable and marginal land, so it does not draw on the drinking water pool or the farmland that both tests are really about. It is also a feedstock across categories rather than a single product:

  • Materials and packaging: biopolymers and fillers that displace oil based inputs.

  • Textiles: fibres and coatings.

  • Cosmetics and food: proteins, pigments, omega 3.

  • Agriculture: biostimulants and soil inputs.

One feedstock, many industries, and none of them requiring the freshwater or arable land that a drier Europe is fighting over.



The honest read on water

It would be easy to overclaim here, and overreach is what an auditor will punish. The weak version is that algae simply uses less water than crops. It does not, not always. Open ponds and raceways lose large volumes to evaporation, and without recycling the freshwater draw of algae cultivation can rival a crop's. Do not build the case on a raw litres per tonne comparison.

The strong version holds. Algae's advantage is not that it uses less water in the abstract, it is that it can use water nobody else wants. Saline, brackish and treated waste water do the job, which shifts demand off the contested freshwater pool and off arable land entirely. Better still, algae can clean water while it grows. In a 2025 trial, Chlorella grown on municipal waste water removed about 87% of the nitrogen and 94% of the phosphorus while producing usable biomass, as published in MDPI Water. The same tonne of algae can help treat a city's water and become feedstock.

On cost, the honest version is similar. Algae biomass often carries a visible premium per kilo today. But the price a manager should compare is total cost of production over a decade, not the spot price this quarter. Once you price in a crop's exposure to drought driven yield losses, the cost of a supply shock in a bad year, and the ESG risk of defending a large freshwater and land footprint, the premium on a feedstock that carries none of those narrows. In a dry decade it can invert.



The part that decides it: sourcing

None of this is automatic. The advantage exists only if the algae is grown the way the argument assumes: a strain matched to the application, grown on genuinely non potable water, on land that competes with nothing, by a producer who can document all of it. Get the sourcing wrong and you can buy algae with a freshwater and energy footprint no better than the crop you left behind.

Sourcing algae well means matching strain, producer and site to the application, confirming the regulatory path in the destination market, and building supply that holds when a single producer stumbles. The resilience is in the sourcing, not the ingredient.

A sensible first move is small. Take one product line and ask which of its inputs could switch to an algae alternative, where that algae would come from, and what its water and supply story actually is. That is the point at which renewable starts to become resilient.



References


BlueBurn works on algae as a cross industry resource and on sourcing it reliably, from textiles to packaging to materials. If you are exploring algae for your own product lines, we would like to hear what you are working on.

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page