Algae Biofuels

(Genetically Modified)
Algae for Biofuel Production
www.organiclightsculptures.com
Friedrich Unterfrauner
Student Msc Sustainable Energy and Environment (2009-2010)
„How to achieve ethical, energy and environmental sustainability to satisfy future energy demands“
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
2 How to cope with future energy demands? ...................................................................................................... 1
3 Explaining Bioenergy and Biofuels.................................................................................................................. 3
4 Algae for biofuel production ............................................................................................................................ 5
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Microalgae for biofuel production ............................................................................................................ 5
5 State of the Art in Genetic Engineering for Biofuel Production....................................................................... 9
6 Genetics and Algae......................................................................................................................................... 11
7 Case Studies ................................................................................................................................................... 12
7.1 Case Study I: The Carbon Trust; The U.K.’s attempt for Algae derived biofuels .................................. 12
7.2 Case Study II: Reducing fossil power plant emissions via microalgae ................................................... 12
7.3 Case Study III: Craig Venter plans to genetically modify ..........................................................................
photosynthetic microorganisms for CO2-capture and biofuel production .............................................. 13
8 A green predicament: Ethical concerns of algae biofuels and algae genetic modification ............................. 14
9 Algae biofuels: a source of sustainable energy? ............................................................................................. 15
10 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................... 17
“ T h e E n e r g y S o lu t i o n ? “
1 Introduction
The current use of energy is unsustainable in any respect. The world has to face the reality that half the
known carbonaceous fossil fuels have already been consumed and that increasing demands will
accelerate the depletion of non renewable energies.
Moreover it is generally accepted that the combustion of fossil fuels and the nascent greenhouse gases
(GHG) significantly modify the Earth’s atmosphere causing climate alterations associated with serious
consequences for the environment we live in (IPCC 2007 p. 678, Stern N. 2006. pp.1).
The challenge at the beginning of the 21st century is therefore to use established fuels and
technologies for energy production more sustainably as well as boosting the development of low-
carbon alternatives. Sustainable and lasting renewable energies in combination with a responsible
utilisation of finite resources could be a key to decarbonise the energy industry and secure future
energy supply.
2 How to cope with future energy demands?
The last decades have seen a steady rise in world’s energy demands. Since the industrial revolution in
the 19th century, an enormous increase in energy consumption is observable (Hanjalic, Van de Krol,
Lekic 2008, p.3). Energy use after the 2nd World War has been accelerated by an economic upsurge in
western civilisations and a direct dependence on low-cost energy supply combined with an alteration
in human lifestyle.
There are mainly two reasons for increasing global energy consumption, (i) the inherent and currently
inseparable chaining of economic prosperity and high energy demand in industrial societies and (ii) an
absolute rise in participating members on the energy market caused by global population growth.
Energy demand increase in developed countries has slowed down since the late 70s partly due to
higher efficiencies in the utilisation of energy, relocation of energy use for production to other
countries, resource or pollution intensive industries to developing countries, as well as stalled
population growth. The lion’s share in rising energy demand in the last two decades is accredited to an
economic upsurge and population growth in developing countries. World population will reach 8-10
billions within 25 years (Hanjalic et al. 2008, p.4). The developing world faces 200,000 newborns
every day. Considering the global energy consumption of ≈ 1.5 toe a-1/inhabitant, a capacity of 400
MW must be installed every day (Hanjalic et al. 2008, p.4). This corresponds to three 1 GW coal fire
station every week. China and India e.g. made up 10 % of the global energy consumption in 1990. In
2006 this fraction has nearly doubled to 19% and will reach nearly 30% by 2030 according to the
International Energy Outlook 2009 (EIA 2009).
The current global energy demand is approximately 12,000 Mtoe (12x109 Tonnes of Oil Equivalents),
but is believed to grow by a rate of 1.6% a-1 and reaching a total increase of 40% in 2030 (IAE 2009).
The actual energy production is strongly dependent on carbonaceous fossil fuels. Around 80% of the
primary energy production is currently provided by coal, oil and gas. According to scenario
calculations by the IEA (International Energy Agency) there will be no heavy shift in the proportion of
energy provision. Even the most optimistic scenarios see a dominating role of fossil fuels in the near
future (Figure 1).
1
Figure 1 World primary energy use for the year 2007 (12070 Mtoe) and the year 2030 (16,800 Mtoe).
Electricity units are converted into tonnes oil equivalents according to the conversion factor 0.22
corresponding to the efficiency factor of 39 % for heat conversion [heat conversion factors after World
Energy council; www.worldenergy.org]. adapted from EAI( 2009); IAE (2009).
The past has been characterised by volatile energy markets and a growing public and policy concern
about the future of finite fossil fuels.
According to the IAE (2009) crude oil (as a
Reserves* Giga-toe years
reference for energy prices) will cost more
than $100 bbl-1 (barrel) on a long term Oil 190-250 ~ 50
-1
average and will rise to over $120-200 bbl Gas 160 ~ 50
Coal (including Lignite) 600 >200
within 20 years. The combination of high
* According to the current energy consumption of ~12,000
energy prices and policy subsidies will Mtoe a-1 , Gtoe= 109 tonnes of oil equivalents, years=
estimated run out in years
boost investments for clean technologies.
Table 1 Global carbonaceous fuel reserves. Hanjalic et al.
On a competitive basis there is still a gap
(2008)
between established and renewable energy
except for niche markets. Renewable energies experience an annual growth rate of more than 3%. 54%
of the increase is due to hydro electrical power plants, 33% due to wind farms and another 13% to
solar and geothermal energy. In this balance biomass for domestic use is not included as its
contribution to global primary energy consumption is difficult to estimate e.g. wood combustion in
developing countries. Furthermore biomass production at the expense of food production is not
considered a sustainable energy source. Nevertheless bioenergy opens up a promising perspective in
terms of 3rd respectively 4th generation bioenergy production when no arable land has to be converted
for fuel production. Scientific knowledge as well as the commercialisation is still in its infancy.
Furthermore there are comprehensible ethical concerns associated with engineered bioenergy
production.
2
3 Explaining Bioenergy and Biofuels
Bioenergy is a collective term for every form of energy extracted from biomass. The main energy
forms produced out of bioenergy are heat, cooling or electricity.
Biomass is organically built matter produced by living plants, algae, fungi, microorganisms as well as
animals and their byproducts. In most cases solar energy is converted through photosynthesis into
chemical energy in the form of: cellulose, sugar, lipids, hydrogen and other components. Some algae,
fungi and microorganisms are nourished on chemical energy extracted from other biomass or directly
from existing biomass.
In conjunction with energy, biomass is normally regarded as biofuel. Biofuels are regarded a
renewable energy source as long as they are linked to the terrestrial carbon cycle. Fossil fuels are
organic hydrocarbons but were excluded for millions of years from the carbon cycle.
Until the industrial revolution biomass and biofuels were the most important source of energy. Their
importance is still not negligible as wood and char are important energy sources in developing
countries. Wood and char can make up to 40-80% of the primary energy production in some
developing countries (Hanjalic et al. 2008). Even in developed countries biomass for heating and
cooking is still widespread.
On a non-domestic energy production level biofuels make up a significant contribution to world
energy supply. Its fraction is likely to increase considering some ambitious political plans for biofuel
production. An EU- directive dictates a biofuel quota of 10% in transport fuels by 2020 which does
not correspond to scenarios of the EIA 2009 and IAE 2008. (Nicolls 2009, p.121).
There are five different types of starting products shown in Figure 2. and three different aggregate
states of biofuel end-products (i) solid, (ii) liquid and (iii) gaseous. Solid biofuels are mainly wood,
char or lignocellulosic materials. Liquid biofuels include sugar or oil based liquids from solid biomass.
Biomass can have various different compositions. Figure 2 draws the pathways from biomass to
biofuels. Composition categories are divided into their main energy carrier.
Oilseed and waste oils are converted via a biochemical process called esterification into biodiesel.
Biowastes can have a complex composition and are commonly turned into fuel gas by biological
digestion. Sugar and starch have similar molecular structure and are metabolized by yeast or microbial
fermentation into bioethanol. This process is widely used for corn, soy and sugarcane energy crops.
Lignocellulosic biomass can be dissipated through BTL- Biomass to Liquid Technologies into
biodiesel or over gasification into Syngas. With special treatment lignocellulosic material can be
converted into bioethanol and hydrogen. Fluid biofuels are of great interest as they have a high energy
per unit quantity and can substitute fossil oil.
3
Figure 2 Biomass to biofuel intermediate steps and pathways. Adapted from www.biofuels-platform.ch
Despite the miscellaneous possibilities there are some inherent problems with biofuels. The present
biofuels are not sustainable yet. The high energy deployment for fertilizer and pesticide application in
growing the feedstock significantly distorts the GHG savings.
Moreover there is an ethical discussion regarding the land consumption of biofuels. So called 1st
generation biofuels are not seen as a sustainable biofuel solution any more, because they compete with
agricultural land for food crop production. The focus is switching to 2nd or even 3rd generation biofuels.
2nd generation biofuels need only marginal land and no fertilizer application. For a commercial
production of 2nd generation biofuels still vast areas of land are needed.
Algae biofuels are a very promising alternative though. Their energy output per land unit is at least 30
times higher than for 2nd generation biofuels (Nicolls 2009, 128p.). Other studies speak about more
than 102 – 103 times the productivity of land crops (Sheehan et al. 1998). 3rd generation biofuels are a
promising alternatives to other biofuels but there are still vagueness to be investigated.
4
4 Algae for biofuel production
4.1 Introduction
Photosynthetic plants, certain species of algae and microorganisms use the energy of the sun in
combination with carbon dioxide and water for vital functions. These organisms can store the
chemical energy mainly as lignocelluloses, lipids, starch, polysaccharides, hydrogen and various other
compounds.
Since algae and microorganisms occur in every biosphere of the planet they account for more than
30,000 species. This number is believed to be only a fraction of the total, yet not discovered species
(50,000 estimated) (Mata et al. 2009). Single species can have multiple strains differing in structural
and metabolic characteristics.
Fundamentally there is a main differentiation between macro- and microalgae. Macroalgae are usually
referred as “seaweed” and are fast growing organisms of considerable size. Microalgae are
monocellular or simple multi-cellular photosynthetic organisms (Sheehan et al. 1998).
Extensive research in the field of algae-manufacturing and production has been performed in the last
50 years. With the oil crisis in the 1970s interest in microalgae increased because of their potential for
biofuel production and of their growth behaviour (Mata et al. 2009). Notwithstanding, algae and
microorganisms are still poorly researched and lack of basic understanding. Macroalgae as a source of
biofuels are not discussed in detail in this work.
4.2 Microalgae for biofuel production

Microalgae live in aqueous environments. Their growth is not directly linked to human food or land
consumption, so that some authors call microalgae the “3rd generation biofuel” (Posten and Schaub
2009). Microalgae biomass can be used for different applications such as oil production, hydrogen
production, biogas production, environmental applications, as a feedstock, in the cosmetic and
pharmaceutical industry as well as a carbon capture and storage technology (Mata et al. 2009).
Microalgae can have great advantages compared to terrestrial biomass. Microalgae can use solar
energy through efficient photosynthesis and convert it into valuable organic compounds. Their
photoconversion efficiency (ratio of chemical energy content of biomass versus incoming solar
radiation) can be up to 5% compared to less than 1% for terrestrial plants (Mata et al. 2009; Amin
2009; Sheehan et al.1998). Hence productivity under efficient utilization of minor amounts of fertilizer
and sufficient aeration with CO2 enriched air leads to high productivity rates. The biomass increase is
depending on the stage of the culture growth phase. As shown in Figure 3, the increase in algal
biomass is not uniform but experiences an accelerated growth in the initial phase with a receding
growth rate in the following phase and an accelerating decrease of the growth rate at the end. In the
initial exponential growth phase the algal biomass is doubled after 24 h – 3.5 h (Chisti 2007).
5
Figure 3 Schematic representation: phases of algal growth (solid line) and nutrient
usage during growth (dotted line). Source: Mata et al.
Many algae strains do not only produce biomass by growth but can have high dry weight contents of
oil. The oil fraction can exceed 80% of the dry weight, but is more commonly within 15-50 % (Amin
2009; Chisti 2007). Table 2 shows potential oil yields for different biodiesel feedstocks. According to
Mata et al. 2009, even microalgae of low oil content can produce ten times the amount of the most
productive terrestrial biodiesel feedstocks. Important parameters of biological productivity are solar
energy and water availability. Both factors are inhibiting factors for terrestrial plants since optimal
conditions are infrequent. Chisti (2007); Brennan and Owende (2009) indicate over 105 tonnes ha-1 a-1
of oil. However, these values are estimations after up-scaling of laboratory experiments. Up-scaling
showed that there are significant restrictions to the high yields over the annual growth and cultivation
life cycles of microalgae.
Table 2 Comparison of microalgae with other oil feedstocks. Source: Mata et al. (2009)
A great advantage of microalgae is their ability to grow under harsh conditions like wastewater,
brackish water or sea water. With restrictions, they can be cultivated without stressing local water
budgets (Amin 2009).
Microalgae experience highest growth rates under CO2-enriched conditions. A promising field of
microalgae is their application as a carbon capture and storage measure (CCS). Microalgae have been
successfully tested for CO2 and greenhouse gas segregation in fossil fuel combustion processes and
could be applied for bio-fixation of industrial flue gases. Different studies indicate a CO2-capture rate
of 1.7 to 1.85 kg/kg dry algal biomass (Brennan and Owende 2009; Posten and Schaub 2009).
Microalgae can handle CO2-concentrations of 15 x 104 ppmv (parts per million; volumetric), but will
suffer from decreased production with above optimal concentrations. Typical flue gas CO2-
concentrations in combustion processes are around 10-18 x 104 ppmv. Flue gas could be fed
immediately from fossil fuel power plants (see chapter 7.2: Case study II). Studies showed though that
highest production with enhanced CO2-concentrations, are around 2 x 104 ppmv. Algal biomass
production could benefit from several combustion processes and their exhaust gases (Brennan and
Owende 2009).
6
Despite of their biological simplicity, microalgae need particular cultivation, harvesting and
processing techniques in order to grow effectively. Their outcome and economical viability is
determined by key factors, processes and techniques which are poorly developed at the present.
The cultivation of microalgae for biofuel purposes is still economically not viable. The process steps
for microalgae production are shown in Figure 3 and described in the following.
The algal status is mainly dependent on certain abiotic and biotic factors such as:
• climatic conditions, temperature, evaporation, precipitation, radiation insulation
• water chemistry, ph-values, salinity
• nutrient and carbon availability
• mixing and aeration
• selected species
• algal resistance to environmental influences and variations
• growth phase
• environmental pollutions or toxic substances
• biologic pollution: predator species and concurrence
The influence of these parameters and their quantitative impact on algal growth is still not completely
understood. Though temperature is considered the most important limiting factor (Mata et al. 2009).
Temperature drop is tolerated up to 15°C but temperatures exceeding the optimum of 20-26°C by only
2-4°C can result in a complete culture collapse.
There are mainly two different cultivation systems: open pond systems and photo-bioreactors (PBRs).
(Fig. 5)
Open pond cultivation is an established way of growing microalgae in raceway ponds of considerable
size. Their main advantage regarding PBRs is their cost and maintenance. The disadvantages of open
ponds are: greater land use, evaporation losses, increased salinity, poor aeration, CO2 volatilization
during gassing, temperature fluctuations, poor light penetration, photoinhibition due to overexposure
(too high rates of sunlight causes growth decrease) and lower yields (Mata et al. 2009; Sheehan et al.
1998).
Open pond systems for algae cultivation are deployed successfully for Chlorella algae in food
production. Presently the lowest cost for biomass production of the widely used algae type Duniella
salina in open pond systems is £2-3 kg-1 of biomass (Brennan and Owende 2009). Despite their high
costs PBRs have some significant advantages. The closed system allows a good control of growth
conditions. The probability of biological contamination is lower and higher structure densities are
possible. The main problems of PBRs are their high costs, overheating, build up of photolimited zones
in the inner zone, photoinhibition in the peripheral zones, cell structure damage due to hydrodynamic
stresses, and growth on the reactor wall (Chisti 2007; Amin 2009, Mata et al. 2009).
7
Figure 4 Own Illustration: From Algae to biofuel: integrated process chain of algal cultivation. Source: based on
Mata et al. (2009), Brennan and Owende (2009); Amin ( 2009).
The photoinhibition could be solved by mixing the water/algae dispersion at certain rates
(overexposure vs. recovery in dark zone). Overheating could be counteracted by cooling systems.
As shown in Fig. 5, dependent on the algae characteristics different types of harvesting methods are
applied, from sedimentation, centrifugation, and flocculation to (ultra)-filtration to concentrate the
algae mixture. A small ratio of the harvested algae is recycled to build up the next culture. Harvest is
still a technical and economical impediment since harvesting costs reach 20-30% of the total biomass
production costs (Mata et al. 2009). Depending on the desired fuel, the ‘condensed’ dispersion is
processed to dry biomass or separated from water by disrupting the cell walls via squeezing, solvents,
ultrasound or microwaves.
In a last step the processed biomass is converted via biochemical conversion into methane or hydrogen
or via digestion into methane or hydrogen, or via alcoholic fermentation into ethanol. Dry biomass can
be transformed via pyrolysis into bio-oil, syngas or charcoal, via transesterification into biodiesel, via
gasification into syngas or combusted directly for electricity generation.
Hydrogen production from microalgae is a particular case, as harvests are continuous and do not imply
a separation of the algal biomass, but a continuous collection of emitted hydrogen-gas, which requires
no further processing (Figure 4). The additionally gained biomass can be processed as algal biomass.
8
Studies indicate a maximum yield for hydrogen production through green-algae of about 98 kg H2 ha-1
day-1 (Melis and Happe 2001 in Brennan and Owende 2009). Biologic hydrogen production is a very
promising, but poorly explored field.
5 State of the Art in Genetic Engineering for Biofuel Production
Mankind has gone from an age of chemical science, to nuclear and information technologies to a
domination of biological sciences at the beginning 21st century (Mehta and Gair 2001). A broad
definition of Genetic Engineering could be “Genetic Engineering involves the direct, intentional
alteration of the genetic material of organisms”, or more precise the procedure of isolating,
manipulating and expressing genetic material and […] to target genes to transfer them to other
organisms (Reiss and Straughan 1996, p.25).
Currently, there is a great interest in the use of biotechnology for improving biofuel production and it
is seen as a path to sustainable biofuels in general (Koh and Ghazoul 2008). Despite serious concerns
about ethical implications and environmental risks, genetic engineering is advancing fast.
Bioenergy from land-crops has some serious limitations. The low energy units of sunlight, efficiency
losses when converted into biomass and generally low energy outputs per unit of land, hinder the
competitiveness with fossil fuels. New alternative fuel types should meet certain characteristics: (i) net
carbon neutrality, (ii) from sustainable sources, (iii) liquid fuel for transportation sector, (iv) large-
scale provision of energy, (v) affordable (From systems biology to biofuels).
Only when fossil fuel prices become prohibitive and/or costs of bioenergy processing are lower,
bioenergy can really compete with other energy sources at a commercial level (Koh and Ghazoul
2008). “A new technology is economically feasible if social benefits from adapting the technology are
greater than its social costs.” (Sticklen 2008).The key to an economic feasibility could be genetic
modification of various structural and metabolic characteristics of potential and established bioenergy
species for higher yields and lower costs of bioenergy processing.
Genetic engineering for food crops is well established e.g. corn as the most modified crop. Also
sugarcane has been genetically modified and proved to be efficiently modifiable (Sticklen 2008).
Poplar, spruce, eucalyptus, willow and other fast growing tree species have been tested for enhanced
growth. Experiences from food crop modification are now taken to the bioenergy field.
In principle genetic engineering for bioenergy production tries to (i) reduce costs and raise the
competitiveness, (ii) use land more efficiently, in other words higher biomass production per land unit
and (iii) find sustainable low carbon solutions. Recently there are significant efforts in the field of
system biology. The objective is to understand complex interrelation of plants and their components in
the environment (Rupprecht 2009).Very little is understood about the interactions stimulating plants
do develop certain characteristics. Past progress in the field of genetic engineering was greatest in the
field of plant resistivity, reproduction and hybridization.
9
Figure 5 Simplified presentation of potential pathways for genetic engineering for woody biomass. Source:
adapted from Ragauskas et al. 2006
Current progress is shifting towards specific biofuel relevant characteristics including (Sticklen 2008;
Yuan et al. 2008; Ragauskas et al. 2006; Helena 2009)
1. Photosynthetic pathway engineering for more efficient use of solar energy and chloroplast
modifications for better turnover as well as enhanced carbon dioxide adsorption.
2. Cellulose, lignin and cell wall biosynthesis to speed up lignocellulosic degradation, to eased
enzyme breakdown and increased biomass gain.
3. Genetic engineering of lipid or polysaccharide composition for enhanced biofuel quality.
4. Enzyme alteration, integration and over-expression for decreasing biofuel pre-treatment and
accelerate cellulosic degradation e.g. integrate microbial ligneases into living biomass.
5. Increase abiotic resistivity (drought, flooding, salt, temperature, radiation, acidity and
alkalinity)
6. Increase nutrient uptake, nutrient turnover and dampen influence of limiting elements like
phosphorus, nitrate, aluminium.
7. Control of growth behaviour, flowering and reproduction
Despite the great potential of genetic engineering for biofuel production, only limited success could be
noted in the field. Moreover, changing genomics could have undesirable effects for the plant
healthiness and structural disadvantages. There is still very little known about possible side effects of
genetically modified energy crop cultivation on biodiversity and the environment. Moreover, it is very
unlikely that energy crops will not compete for cultivable land (FBAE, 2009).
10
6 Genetics and Algae
The field of molecular biology and genetic engineering is highly complex and not easily accessible
from a layman’s point of view. The objective of genetic modification with all its subcategories is to
change the characteristics of algal growth, composition, metabolism and products in a way which is
favourable for biofuel production. In other words, the main intent is to improve the economics of
microalgae production (Chisti 2007).
Even if algae is believed to be a very effective way to produce biofuels, there are still a number of
limitations to a successful exertion in practice. Optimal productivity of microalgae is limited to very
specific conditions which are difficult to control in an industrial process. Currently high fractions of
oil contents can only be achieved by exposing the algae culture to environmental stresses and deplete
nutrient conditions not favourable for high production rates in general. High oil yields can be limited
to single cells and must not be strain specific. The drivers for changed metabolic functions and
resulting products are not completely investigated. The C:N (Carbon/Nitrate) ratio of the nutrient
supply is changing the lipid composition considerably (Meng et al. 2007).
Chisti, 2007 offers seven different starting points:
• increase in photosynthetic efficiency for higher biomass production
• enhanced growth rates
• enhanced oil biosynthesis and composition
• increasing tolerance towards high temperature, salinity and herbicides
• reduce the effect of photoinhibition with high radiation rates
• Oxygen tolerance of cell walls
• Enhanced CO2-assimilation
For algal genetic engineering, the general principles and technologies from general plant engineering
can be applied (see section 5 on ‘Sate of the Art in Genetic Engineering for Biofuel Production’).
Past progress in genetic modification has mostly been carried out for metabolic processes. The U.S.
NREL - National Renewable Energy Laboratory emphasized on the lipid composition. It was possible
to change the molecular composition of lipid components the so called fatty acids (Sheehan et al.
1998). Algal lipids are high in unsaturated fatty acids, which are susceptible to oxidation and
decomposition. This has got negative effects on the suitability of the biofuel for combustion processes.
Metabolic engineering can improve the control over metabolic pathways regulating material fluxes.
(Meng et al. 2007).
Molecular biology as a subcategory of genetic engineering is highly relevant for increasing
photosynthetic efficiencies, photoinhibition and plant resilience towards divers influences. Metabolic
engineering focuses on modifying enzymatic processes, whereas molecular biology tries to recombine
DNA structures and genes to either switch on or off different cell functions. DNA recombination can
not only amplify, but even enhance cell functions. The premise for genetic engineering is a complete
decryption of the algae gene in order to allocate divers functions to specific gene sequences. In a
second step relevant genes are isolated, cloned and transferred via a bio-synthetic host cell to the algae
cell, where they carry out the functions for which they are programmed for (Roessler et al. ).
11
In principle genetic modification for algae is viable. However, limitations as gene instabilities and
fundamental understandings of the algal metabolism and structures are to be overcome.
Notwithstanding, there is an increasing interest in genetically modifying algae both, on the part of
governments as well as private companies.
7 Case Studies
7.1 Case Study I: The Carbon Trust; The U.K.’s attempt for Algae derived biofuels
(from Guardian News and Media, article on ‘UK announces world's largest algal biofuel project’;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/23/biofuels-energy)
The Carbon Trust is an independent company financed by the Department for Energy and Climate
Change (DECC), the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), the
Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and Invest Northern Ireland. Its declared
objective is “to accelerate the move to a low carbon economy now and develop commercial low
carbon technologies for the future.” (Carbon Trust 2009) The carbon trust tries to provide, amplify and
boost the development of technological, financial, ecological solutions by working with public
institutions and private companies.
On 23rd October of 2008 the carbon trust launched a £26 million funded project, investing in algal
derived biofuel technologies for transport. According to Mark Williamson, innovation director at
Carbon Trust, the aim is to find a cost effective sustainable alternative for making algal derived
biofuels to be a commercial reality by 2020.
The project is one of many steps towards a sustainable low carbon future and to realize the UK climate
change agreements to reduce overall emissions in 2050 by 80%. The forecast is that algae biofuels
could replace around 6% of the nationally consumed transport fuels, equivalent to 70 million litres.
The project is subdivided into two stages. The first stage will see a £6 million funding for British
universities and companies trying to find both algal strains with quick growth and high oil yields. The
second stage focuses on an up-scaling of microalgae cultures in open ponds. This will mostly take
place abroad, as solar radiation in the U.K. is not favourable for algal growth.
The Carbon Trust does not concentrate all the research means on a single approach but tries to invest
in a multitude of different paths in order to “fully realize the potential of algae” (John Benneman,
algae consultant for the Carbon Trust).
The Carbon Trust channels significant finance into a probably more sustainable energy future derived
from 2nd respectively 3rd generation biofuels.
7.2 Case Study II: Reducing fossil power plant emissions via microalgae
A potential operational area of algae cultivation is a measure to sequester CO2 emitted by fossil fuel
power plants. Since algae experiences an enhanced growth of biomass under elevated CO2
concentrations it can be operated as a flue gas emission reducer. Prevalent “Carbon Capture”
technologies are technically complex and expensive. Even if microalgae cultivation is not viable at this
time, they could economically gain ground as climate change counteractions are increasingly stringent.
12
The concept is currently tested on a small-scale for several coal fired power plants in the U.S.,
Australia, Canada, Japan and Germany. The U.K. position towards Carbon Capture and “Parking” is
positive, but no concrete experimental plant is planned for the U.K. coal fired plants.
For further information go to:

Article online: ‘Australian firm to launch "world's largest" green slime facility’, Accessed 10
November 2009, http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2253115/mbd-energy-
launch-world-largest
7.3 Case Study III: Craig Venter plans to genetically modify photosynthetic
microorganisms for CO2-capture and biofuel production
(July 14th, 2009)
The American biologist Craig Venter announced a $600 million (US) joint-venture with his spin of
company Synthetic Genomics and oil giant ExxonMobil to develop and investigate a viable path
towards 4th generation biofuels. Craig Venter is mostly known because of his successful decoding of
the human genome sequence. He now announced to genetically modify marine microorganisms
including microalgae to produce biological derived biofuel.
“It is the largest investment in really trying to produce biofuels”, Craig Venter said. Venter launched a
4 year global collection of marine microbial communities in 2004; known as the Global Ocean
Sampling Expedition. On the expedition his team was sampling marine microorganisms around the
globe. In a second stage he will sample the North-Sea, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean and the Black Sea.
(http://www.genomeweb.com) According to ExxonMobil within 5-10 years they will produce large
quantities of biofuels. Synthetic Genomics is financed with $300 million, for research and
development of potential strains and methods, as well as the genetic modification. ExxonMobil is in
charge of the macroengineering and up-scaling of laboratory outcomes. (http://www.earth2tech.com).
In addition to the huge investment of ExxonMobil other companies joined the project as strategic
investors e.g. BP-British Petroleum. (http://www.genomeweb.com)
Fur further information on this topic go to:

New Ideas, New Fuels: Craig Venter; Interview with Craig Venter for ‘The Hudson Union
Society’, Available at:
http://fora.tv/2008/07/30/New_Ideas_New_Fuels_Craig_Venter_at_the_Oxonian
Craig Venter: On the verge of creating synthetic life; speech of Craig Venter for TED- Ideas
worth spreading; Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKZ-GjSaqgo
13
8 A green predicament: Ethical concerns of algae biofuels and algae genetic

modification
The prospects for algae as a potential sustainable supply for bioenergy are promising. Algae has
obvious advantages in comparison with other biofuel crops. Nevertheless there are still a variety of
ethical-moral issues to be addressed.
There are some fundamental concerns of biofuels in general. What role could biofuels play in the
future energy supply, is the ‘fuss’ justified? Without revolutionizing progress in this field biofuels can
never be a sustainable solution. Right here lays the potential for biofuel production from algae. 1st or
even 2nd generation bioenergy crops will never be able to address the increasing demand, as land
resources are finite and population growth will make food production more stringent. In this context
the whole “Food vs. Fuel” controversy was born. Is it justifiable that food is “burned” in fuel guzzlers,
when millions of people suffer from soaring food prices? Biofuels considerably lost popularity in the
past years, because of social as well as ethical concerns (Schienke 2007).
Environmental problems arise when land has to be cleared for extensive cultivation or when arable
land is taken over and food production has to be moved to intact ecosystems. Deforestation and land
use change is the consequence. The benefit for climate change mitigation is minimal. The land take for
intensive biofuel production hits the less-privileged people as various examples show (Mehta and Gair
2001)
There is definitely an increasing awareness of climate change issues and a public and governmental
will to mitigate potential future consequences. One of the most urgent measures is a general reduction
of GHGs. In principle, biofuels can be a low carbon energy supply. Nevertheless, studies revealed
only mediocre GHG-savings from the highly industrialized cultivation of 1st generation biofuels.
In principle, algae has the potential to overcome all these constraints. Land take in comparison with
other biofuel crops is minimal. Algae do not compete implicitly with domestic or agricultural water
demand.
There are some constraints though which are inherent. Algae needs light and warm temperatures and
are restricted therefore to milder and climatically balanced global regions. From a UK point of view it
is likely that algae cultivation once commercially grown is dependent on foreign countries.
A variety of application as well as associated risks are opened by genetic modification of algae.
Ethical concerns in regard with algae biofuels are worsened by the deployment of biotechnology.
Genetic modification is considered very controversial in the EU, but most notably in the UK. On the
one hand there is an anthropocentric view that technology is able to fix everything; on the other hand
there is a deep-rooted moral cons versus “meddling with nature”. This precautionary principle has
been cemented since the “mad cow disease” (Mehta and Gair 2001).
Biotechnology has the opportunity to make this green technology viable. It can solve other ethical
problems by creating new ones. The application of vast amounts of fertilizers or pesticides is not
sustainable in any respect. Biotechnology could change plant characteristics in such a way that lesser
chemicals are needed. Higher yields mean higher per hectare energy outputs. The low competition
with food crops by algae could further be decreased. Economic viability could advocate the
establishment of algae as a biofuel crop and could make other unsustainable biofuels obsolete.
Mehta and Gair (2001) put into question if genetic modification can benefit mankind as a whole or if it
is pure commercial self-interests. The access to this technology could again be monopolized by
14
privileged countries. It is very likely that there are unforeseeable risks associated even if constantly
downplayed by stakeholders. The risk through genetic engineering is likely to be more accepted for
energy crops as they are not directly consumed by humans (Gressel 2008). Genetic modification can
not ‘reckon without one’s host’ and should involve the public view into its development.
9 Algae biofuels: a source of sustainable energy?
The current public and scientific concourse on biofuels is concerned about a fundamental question:
“To what extend is a sustainable biofuel economy possible?” This implies as well that it is not a
generally accepted certainty if biofuels in general, are a sustainable way of producing energy. At the
time bioenergy is a very opaque, highly facetted sector depending on a variety of different fuel sources.
It is difficult to include all sustainability relevant aspects of production, transport and consumption. It
is obvious that there are uncounted grey areas.
Biofuels in general could be a renewable energy source if produced without depending on finite
resources and without causing environmental as well as social problems. Most of the concerns arouse
by the intense cultivation of energetically inefficient 1st generation bio-energy crops competing with
food production. This ended in rising food prices. The problem has been denominated “Food vs. Fuel”.
And other issue addressed the relatively low benefit in GHG emissions.
Figure 6 Own illustration. Towards biofuel sustainability with algae derived biofuels (brown-green)
and genetically modified algae biofuels? Other biofuel types and their deficiencies (in brackets) are
given. Source: adapted from Thornley et al. (2009)
15
Bioenergy will be part of the U.K.’s future energy mix. Its participation will increase in the middle
term. According to Thornley et al. (2009) 4.9% or 6.9 Mtoe of the energy demand in 2020 could be
covered by sustainable biofuel sources. Nevertheless, this study does not include a possible
participation of algae derived biofuels and has to be revised if optimistic algae biofuel scenarios are
put into practice.
The multi-stakeholder forum ‘The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels’ tries to develop global criteria
for sustainable biofuels. The forum stated that biofuels can only be sustainable if fundamental
premises are fulfilled: (i) positive GHG balance (ii) overall significant energy gains (iii) which should
not cause any negative environmental impacts (iv) or other negative societal consequences (Haye and
Hardtke 2009). Microalgae have some considerable advantages compared to 1st generation biofuels
and I think we can agree that once economical hurdles are overcome it could be a source for
sustainable biofuels.
Microalgae products can easily be introduced into the current energy infrastructure and provide
promising perspectives for the decentralized transport sector (Patil et al. 2008).
Microalgae could be sustainable even if land is needed as long as it can replace other food production
more efficient. Moreover, valuable side products can be obtained.
Thornley et al. (2009) established a classification of sustainable biofuel constraints for the U.K. The
study underlined the current vacancies for a sustainable biofuel economy. Most of the bioenergy is
economically viable but do not sustainable in all sustainability aspects. Figure 6 shows an adapted
version of Thornley’s classification. It is the opinion of the author, that algae fulfils already the social
and environmental concepts of sustainability, but lack of economic viability. Present efforts have good
prospects to solve this constraint in the near future.
Genetic modification is a promising path towards sustainability but not yet available. In terms of ethics
and the environment, there are still questions to be asked and answered. Can genetically modified
algae produce sustainable biofuels? In my opinion it can not be answered at this time, but I am
convinced that it will not take long until public and scientific discourse will ignite.
16
10 Conclusion
Increasing energy demand as well as policy commitments towards global environmental change make
action in terms of the provision of clean sustainable energy stringent. Algae has the great potentiality
to provide valuable biofuels for heat generation, electricity supply and the transport sector. Algae
derived biofuels are one of multiple approaches to provide energy for a secure supply and
simultaneously decreasing overall energy associated GHG emissions. Biofuels will provide a
considerable part of the future energy mix. However, there are ethical as well as environmental
concerns to be addressed. Algae biofuels could overcome these environmental and ethical
controversies.
The technology is not viable yet and has been tested primarily on an experimental base. Currently
algae biofuel production is facing serious limitations in regards of economics, species selection,
cultivation and harvest.
Genetic modification of algae could serve as a catalyst for algae biofuels. Its role is uncertain though,
as genetic engineering raises serious ethical and environmental concerns. It is difficult to predict
whether the potential risks to humans and/or the environment through genetic modification is
legitimate. Although there is great promise of algae biofuels, the technology is still far from
overcoming its limitations and concerns before it can provide sustainable ‘green’ energy.
17
REFERENCES
AMIN, S. 2009. Review on biofuel oil and gas production processes from microalgae. Energy Conversation and
Management 50, pp. 1834-1840.
BEER, L. ERIC, B. PETERS J. POSEWITZ, M. 2009. Engineering algae for biohydrogen and biofuel
production. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 20. pp. 254-271.
BRENNAN, L. AND OWENDE, P. 2009. Biofuels from microalgae- A review of technologies for production,
processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. In
Press, Corrected Proof, Available at: 29th Oct. 2009.
CARBON TRUST, 2009. Welcome to carbon trust international. About. Available at: http://ww.carbontrust.com
[Accessed: 28 November 2009].
CHISTI, Y. 2007. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnology Advances 25. 294-306 pp.
EIA, 2009. International Energy Outlook 2009. Energy Information Administration. Washington. Available at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html [Accessed: 15 October 2009].
FBAE, 2009. Foundation for Biotechnology, Awareness and Education. Science for Environmental Policy.
Genetic Engineering could cut the cost of biofuels. Available at:
http://fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/images/pdf/imporatant-
publication/Genetic_engineering_can_cut_the_costs_of_biofuels.pdf [Accessed: 28 October 2009].
FORTMAN, J.L. CHHABRA S. MUKHOPADHYAY, A. CHOU, H. LEE, T.S. STEHEN, E., KEASING, J.D.
2009. Biofuel alternatives to ethanol: pumping the microbial well. Trends in Biotechnology 26 (7). pp.375-
381.
GRESSEL, J. 2008. Transgenics are imperative for biofuel crops. Plant Science 174, pp. 246–263.
HANJALIC, K. VAN DE KROL, R. LEKIC, A. 2008. Sustainable Energy Technologies: Options and Prospects,
Springer. 2008.
HAYE, S. HARDTKE, C. S. 2008. The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels: plant scientist input needed. Forum
Science & Society, Cell Press.
HELENA, P. 2009. Genetic Engineering, Agriculture and Climate Change. Bonn Climate Change Discussions,
June 2009. Helena Paul of EcoNexus. Available at: http://unfccc2.meta-
fusion.com/kongresse/090601_SB30_Bonn/downl/20090601_sb_1930_helena.pdf [Accessed: 25 November
2009].
IEA, 2008. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2008, Paris. Available at:
http://www.iea.org/weo/2008.asp [Accessed: 15th October 2009].
IPPC 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth Assessment Report. Climate Change 2007.
Available at: http://www1.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm [Accessed: 26th Oct. 2009].
JAMES, R. DIFAZIO, S. BRUNNER, A. STRAUSS, S.1997. Environmental effects of genetically engineered

woody biomass crops. Biomass and Bioenergy 14 (4 ). pp. 403-414.
KOH, L.P. GHAZOUL, J. 2008. Biofuels, biodiversity, and people: Understanding the conflicts and finding
opportunities. Biological Conservation, 141 (10). pp. 2450-2460.
MADRIGAL, A. 2007. A Green Dilemma: Genetic Engineering For Biofuel Production. Available at:
www.earth2tech.com platform. Posted 8th Oct. 2007. Available at: http://earth2tech.com/2007/10/08/a-
green-dilemma-genetic-engineering-for-biofuel-production/
[Accessed: 24th October 2009].
MATA, T. MARTINS A. CAETANO N. S. 2009. Microalgae for biodiesel production and other applications: A
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, pp. 217–232.
18
MEHTA, M.D. GAIR, J.J. 2001. Social, political, legal and ethical areas of inquiry in biotechnology and genetic
engineering. Technology in Society 23. pp. 241–264
MENG, X. YANG, J. XIN, X. ZHANG, LEI. NIE, Q. XIAN, M. 2007. Biodiesel production from oleaginous
microorganisms. Renewable Energy 34. pp. 1-5.
MOONEY, H. A. AND BERNARDI, G. (Eds.) 1990. ‘‘Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the
Environment.’’ Wiley, New York.
NICOLS, T. 2009. How the energy industry works. An insiders Guide 2009. Silverstone Communications Ltd
144 pp.
POSTEN, C. AND SCHAUB, G. 2009. Microalgae and terrestrial biomass as source for fuels – A process view.
Journal of Biotechnology 142. pp. 64-69.
RAGAUSKAS, A. WILLIAMS, K. DAVISON, B. BRITOVSEK, G. CAIRNEY, J. ECKERT, CH.

FREDERICK, W. HALLETT, J.P. LEAK, D. LIOTTA, CH. MIELENZ, J. MURPHY, R. TEMPLER, R.
TSCHAPLINSKI T.200. The Path forward for Biofuels and Biomaterials. Science 27 (311),
www.sciencemag.org pp. 484-489.
REISS, M.J. STRAUGHAN R. 1996. Improving nature. The science and Ethics of genetic engineering.
Cambridge University Press; Reprint edition (March 13, 1998). pp. 298.
RUPPRECHT, J. 2009. From systems biology to fuel—Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as a model for a systems
biology approach to improve biohydrogen production. Journal of Biotechnology 142 pp. 10–20.
SHEEHAN, J. DUNAHA, T. BENEMANN, J. ROESSLER, P. 1998. A Look Back at the U.S. Department of
Energy’s Aquatic Species Program: Biodiesel from Algae. Golden, Colorado: TP-580-24190, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory; 1998. Close-out report. Available at:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf [Accessed: 25 October 2009].
SCHIENKE, E. 2007. The ethics of biofuel. An initial ethical evaluation of Alternative Energy Strategies. Rock
Ethics Institute-Pennsylvania State University. Available at: http://www.global-greenhouse-
warming.com/ethics-of-biofuel.html [Accessed: 1 November 2009].
SKJANES, K. LINDBLAD, P. MULLER, J. 2007. BioCO2 – A multidisciplinary, biological approach using

solar energy to capture CO2 while producing H2 and high value products. Biomolecular Engineering 24. pp.
405–413.
STERN, N.H. 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of climate change. Cambridge University Press. 692p., 2006.
Available at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm [Accessed: 26 Oct.2009].
STICKLEN, M. 2008. Plant genetic engineering for biofuels production: towards affordable cellulosic ethanol.
Nature Reviews Genetics. 9. pp. 433-443.
THORNLEY, P. UPHAM P. TOMEI J. 2009. Sustainability Constraints on UK bioenergy development. Energy

Policy, 37 (12). pp. 5623-5635.
SCHIENKE, E.W. 2004. Biomass technologies, chapter: Ethics of biofuel. Available at: http://www.global-
greenhouse-warming.com/ethics-of-biofuel.html [Accessed: 2 Nov. 2009].
YUAN, J. TILLER, K. AL-AHMAD, H. STEWART, N.R. STEWART, N.C. 2008. Plants to Power: bioenergy
to fuel the future. Trends in Plant Science, 13 (8). pp. 421-429.
19

Algae Biofuels

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Algae Biofuels

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

(Genetically Modified)

Algae for Biofuel Production

2 How to cope with future energy demands?

3 Explaining Bioenergy and Biofuels

4 Algae for biofuel production

4.2 Microalgae for biofuel production

5 State of the Art in Genetic Engineering for Biofuel Production

3. Genetic engineering of lipid or polysaccharide composition for enhanced biofuel quality.

7. Control of growth behaviour, flowering and reproduction

6 Genetics and Algae

For further information go to:

Fur further information on this topic go to:

8 A green predicament: Ethical concerns of algae biofuels and algae genetic

9 Algae biofuels: a source of sustainable energy?

JAMES, R. DIFAZIO, S. BRUNNER, A. STRAUSS, S.1997. Environmental effects of genetically engineered

RAGAUSKAS, A. WILLIAMS, K. DAVISON, B. BRITOVSEK, G. CAIRNEY, J. ECKERT, CH.

SKJANES, K. LINDBLAD, P. MULLER, J. 2007. BioCO2 – A multidisciplinary, biological approach using

THORNLEY, P. UPHAM P. TOMEI J. 2009. Sustainability Constraints on UK bioenergy development. Energy

Você também pode gostar