Theory of Global Sustainable Development Based on Microalgae in Bio and Industrial Cycles, Management-Changing Decisions in Areas of Climate Change and Waste Management

doi:10.4236/jsbs.2013.34038

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems, 2013, 3, 287-297

Published Online December 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/jsbs)

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jsbs.2013.34038

Open Access JSBS

Theory of Global Sustainable Development Based on

Microalgae in Bio and Industrial Cycles,

Management-Changing Decisions in Areas of Climate

Change and Waste Management

Armen B. Avagyan

Research & Industry Centre of Photosynthesizing Organisms, Feed Additives and

Physiologically Active Compounds, Yerevan, Armenia

Email: armin.av@hotmail.com

Received May 22, 2013; revised June 14, 2013; accepted July 6, 2013

which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ABSTRACT

The paper provides requested management-changing decisions through implementation of conclusions of Global Sus-

tainable Development theory based on including of microalgae in Bio and Industrial Cycles in the area of waste-related

management challenges within creating market opportunities for industry through expansion of resource efficiency use

across global supply chains and new design and building sustainable development with contemporary manufacturing of

value added products. A truly coherent waste management and other production policy (biofuel, biopharmaceuticals,

food, feed and perfumery additives) and mitigation of Climate Change are ways to bring these traces closer to cost ef-

fective manufacturing, improving of resource efficiency use, well being economy and human health. Offered techno-

logical change dramatically increase biomass feedstock resources, reduce waste origin of greenhouse emission (since

13% - 17%), organics sent to landfill, pyrolyses, etc. and create a model that all elements along the waste value chain

create economic, societal and/or environmental value.

Keywords: Microalgae; Global Sustainable Development; Climate Change; Waste Management; Biofuel; Feed and

Perfumery Additives; Biopharmaceuticals

1. Introduction

Today waste conversion is one of nowadays viable an-

swers to the waste problem spreading over the World [1-

4]. Waste management practices impact on greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions by affecting energy consumption, me-

thane generation, carbon sequestration, and non-energy-

related manufacturing emissions [5-7]. Policymakers,

managers and scientists need to recognize that ecosys-

tems reduce their ability to deliver the benefits which we

need and ecosystems provide [4]. Biotechnology and

industry should play an important role in effectively ad-

dressing the unsustainable exploitation of waste re-

sources around the world by addressing its own first pri-

orities and values, and must participate in the develop-

ment of alternate innovation methodologies and tech-

nologies that make environmental and industrial projects

more adaptable, sustainable and robust in order to re-

spond to a range of possible future scenarios.

Motivation is a kind of basic function of management,

because without motivation, innovative idea cannot work

effectively. Adaptive management strategies and biote-

chnology allow of changing course based on new insight,

help to establish and sustain institutional settings and

technological systems that are flexible and error-tolerant.

The biotechnological management game-changing deci-

sions are offered in the book “Theory of Global Sustain-

able Development based on including microalgae in Bio

and Industrial Cycles. New Design and Building of Bio-

logical System”, which described also ways of innova-

tion management of waste through increasing of resource

efficiency use across global supply chains, building of

products and technology roadmaps, posing new questions

for investigation, generating new connections among old

facts, and finding of new environments in which trans-

formational solutions of the Global challenges were pro-

liferated [1]. A truly biotechnological waste processing

A. B. AVAGYAN

288

and other production policies are ways to bring these

traces closer to cost effective manufacturing, well being

economy, improving of resource efficiency use and hu-

man health. Therefore this paper addressed to how to

design, build and operate the waste management and

manufacturing of value added products by the use of mi-

croalgae linked to Global Sustainable Development and

mitigation of Climate change.

2. Discussion

2.1. Waste Management

In 2011 the world generated 2 billion tons of municipal

solid waste (MSW) [8] Europeans share is approximately

265 million tons of MSW in 2012 and globally the pro-

duction of MSW will rise from the current 1.3 to 2.2 bil-

lion tones (the annual cost of solid waste management is

projected to rise from the current $205 billion to $375

billion in 2025 per year) [9]. A significant fraction of

MSW consists of organic bio-waste (biological origin

and biodegradable), estimated at a total of up to about

140 Mt of which up to 37 Mt originates from the food

and drink industry [10]. The bio-waste technologies

convert such biodegradable waste to humus via com-

posting, energy via anaerobic digestion, biodiesel or eth-

anol via fuel conversion, or fertilizer through pyrolyses.

The EPA reports, covering of this waste generation from

1960 up to 2009, showed that average person produced

1.96 kg per day of biowaste [2] and the U.S. generated

243 million tons of MSW in 2009, 250 million tons in

2010 [3]. A total of 61.3 million tons of municipal waste

was recycled, while 20.8 million tons of organic waste

composed. In 2010, Americans generated about of trash

and recycled and composted over 85 million tons equiv-

alent to a 34.1 percent recycling rate. In addition, 11.9%

(29 million tons) of this waste was incinerated in

Waste-to-Energy (WtE) facilities. Meanwhile landfill

accounted for 131.9 million tons, or 54.3%. Europeans

incinerated 69.5 million tons of MSW per year between

2007 and 2010 [11].

In May 9, 2013 the daily mean concentration of CO2 in

the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400

parts per million (ppm) for the first time since measure-

ments began in 1958 (in the middle of the XIX cen-

tury concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

was about 280 ppm) [12] which confirm that we must to

account unforeseeable changes in the nature. According

to the EPA solid waste are largest source of GHG emis-

sions of landfill methane (CH4), followed by wastewater

CH4 and nitrous oxide (N2O) (3% of 2004 emissions)

[13]. Canada has highest level of municipal waste gen-

eration per capita (above 800 kg) in comparison with

other developed countries and its total GHG emissions

estimated to 702 megatons CO2 equivalent (Mt CO2 Eq),

an increase of approximately 1 Mt (0.14%) from the

2010 level of 701 Mt [14]. Landfills face more stringent

regulation of CH4 collection, and incineration is hindered

by increasingly tough regulations on emissions. What

kinds of biotechnological approach are relevant in this

context to deal with new typ es of risks and oppo rtunities?

This requires more in-depth analysis, which might touch

upon factors such as the type of policy in use, manage-

ment design, non-economic barriers, resource intensity

and technology demand for set realistic expectations of

policy outcomes.

The perception that landfills are not a viable long term

option has driven incentives towards renewable energy

and waste management. WtE facilities are integrated into

broader waste management regimes aimed at preventing

the use of landfills and as an attractive technology option

to promote low carbon growth in the crowded renewable

energy landscape through the capture of CH4, which is a

naturally occurring by-product of the decomposition of

waste in a landfill or the anaerobic digestion of sewage

sludge. Organic matter converts ultimately to CH4 (65%),

CO2 (35%) and power [15-17] and their market is set to

be worth $26 bn by 2016 [16]. However since 2006 up to

2010 approximately 95% of the global WtE market was

accounted only two technologies: incineration and an-

aerobic digestion [18]. Although combustion technolo-

gies continue to lead the market, advanced thermal trea-

tment technology deployments such as pyrolysis are ex-

pected to pick up as diminishing landfill capacity im-

proves WtE economics. Pyrolysis, plasma gasification,

and gasification are expected to gain relative market

share and together will comprise over 30% of the total

WtE market by 2015. While more than 800 thermal WtE

plants currently operate in nearly 40 countries around the

globe, these facilities treated just 11% of MSW generated

worldwide in 2011 compared to the 70% that was land-

filled [8]. WtE systems will treat at least 261 million tons

of waste annually by 2022, with a total estimated output

of 283 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity and heat gen-

eration is 221 TWh in 2010, global market reaches from

$ 6.2 billion in 2012 up to $29.2 billion by 2022 [8,9].

Under a more optimistic scenario, WtE can potentially

treat 396 million tons of MSW per year with producing

of 429 TWh of power.

What are the main bottlenecks to achieving of waste

management objectives? Despite these greatly encourag-

ing forecasts, there are a number of challenges facing the

waste conversion industry. Public opinion plagues pro-

tested against some profiles of waste conversion tech-

nologies [19]. Such technologies as pyrolyses and gasi-

fication has a negative association with waste incinera-

tion, and people can be reluctant to have such projects

situated close to them. The principal source of revenue

from Methane Power’s landfill gas to energy projects is

Open Access JSBS

A. B. AVAGYAN 289

the bundled sale of electricity and renewable energy cer-

tificates to local utilities. The pricing is entirely depend-

ent upon the contractual terms that the company is able

to negotiate with the relevant utility. The sale of carbon

credits from eligible projects is another potential revenue

stream and can destroy by a particular project. Simulta-

neously, the market price per ton of these credits can

fluctuate greatly, relevant factors being the standard

against which a project is verified and the market in to

which the carbon credits are being sold. Current market

pricing for carbon credits is at historic lows, and policy

do not provide tax incentives or subsidies, making life

uncomfortable for those whose business plan has been

heavily carbon-credit focused [8,20].

Biomass gasification technologies have been demon-

strated and implemented successfully at large scale, but

inefficiencies in the technology and other non-technical

barriers render biomass gasification economically unvia-

ble in comparison to fossil-based energy [21]. Simulta-

neously, the speculative nature of many Waste-to-Biofuel

projects has led to a lack of consensus over the most ef-

fective technologies and appropriate business model for

conversion projects. Indeed financing these new and

emerging technologies on a commercial scale is difficult

in today’s cautious financial environment and the end

result is that only very few companies of waste conver-

sion technologies reach full scale commercial viability

[16]. Biogas producing is also a complex technological

process that makes monitoring complicated [15]. How-

ever burning of CH4 (with generation as one of final

product of CO2) is grounded that such product at 21

times less harmful by GNG indicator as decrease CH4

emission [22]. So, risk profiles of waste conversion

technologies can be high, meaning project implementa-

tion is extremely hard. The EPA provided that more

companies understand these uncertainties and risks [13].

In addition, 11.9%, or 29 million tons of the U.S. waste

was incinerated in WtE facilities, down from 31.6 mil-

lion tons in 2006, less than 29.7 million tons estimated in

1990 [3]. The CEWEP Report check the possible ef-

fects of the main parameters of energy efficiency per-

formance in the R1 formula (Recovery (R1) efficiency

factor) with a view to gathering information for the de-

termination of a possible climate factor and found that is

met only 65.6% (206 WtE plants out of the total 314 in-

vestigated) [11]. The CEWEP explained that it is much

more difficult to achieve the R1 threshold, in particular if

plants are small and can only export electricity (often

with little or no opportunity to export heat). The analysis

pointed also to the fact that over 75% of Europe’s 480

WtE facilities are more than ten years old and many will

need modernizing to adhere to the current strict legal

requirements, especially of flue gas treatment [23]. So,

the industry is holding its’ breath to see what will happen

next. The challenges are clear: choosing the right tech-

nology for each company and then delivering an opera-

tional project cost effectively and at scale. What novel

type of management, technological and economic ap-

proaches, systems design, policy, and stewardship can be

used for effectively waste management through mitiga-

tion of waste landfilling, pyrolyses, methane and carbon

manufacturing as well a s increase effectiveness of waste-

water cleaning?

2.2. Microa lgae Appl i c at ion for Management an d

Conversation of Waste

The economics of biomass power generation are criti-

cally dependent upon the availability of a secure, long-

term supply of feedstock at a competitive cost. The main

question regarding the viability of biomass plants lies in

the development of a reliable feedstock supply chain, es-

pecially because long-term feedstock agreements are es-

sential for financing of any biomass project. Many bio-

mass generation technologies are mature and are not

likely to undergo significant technological change, while

cost reductions through scale-up will be modest [24-26].

Potential bio-energy supply until 2050 up to 700 EJ/yr

was estimate from marginal lands (0 - 150 EJ/yr), forest

residues (0 - 150 EJ/yr) as well as relatively low potential

can be found in residues from agriculture (15 - 70 EJ/yr),

dry manure (5 - 55 EJ/yr) and organic waste—only 5 - 50

EJ/yr [27]. Can we increase feedstock resources through

the use of waste?

The biological method stands out as most effective and

economically efficient method for the purification of in-

dustrial and municipal wastewaters by using the micro-

biological activated sludge. However, bacteria of the ac-

tivated sludge have low stability to high concentration of

organic and mineral components, thus considering in-

creased rate of water flow and also requires further de-

struction of superfluous quantity of activated sludge [1].

The application of microalgae for wastewater purify-

cation opened the possibility of alternative approaches as

they expose higher stability which enables their use in

more concentrated and toxic environments and obtain

higher purification rate compared with activated sludge.

Wastewater is also an attractive resource for algae pro-

duction due to its nutrient content and low cost and cou-

pled with an increased push to dramatically reduce or-

ganics sent to landfill, pyrolyses, and carbon manufac-

turing and can be the drive towards innovation waste ma-

nagement.

The U.S. Office of Fuels Development funded the

Aquatic Species Program (ASP (NREL/TP-580-24190,

1978 - 1996, $25 million)) aimed to develop technology

on production of biodiesel from high lipid-content algae

[28-30]. A major conclusion from the ASP analyses is

that there is little prospect for any alternatives to the open

Open Access JSBS

A. B. AVAGYAN

290

pool designs for microalgae production, given low cost

requirements associated with fuel production and the

factors that most influence on cost are biological and not

engineering-related, and the only plausible near to

mid-term application of microalgae biofuels requires bio-

mass manufacturing by integration with wastewater treat-

ment. Two hundred thousand hectares (less than 0.1% of

climatically suitable land areas in the U.S.) could pro-

duce one quad of fuel (1.055 × 1018 J), approximately

9.5 million acres would be required to produce 15,000

gallons of oil per acre from algae. To produce would be

required soybeans almost 3bn acres of soybeans fields, or

over 1bn acres of canola fields at nominal yields of 48

and 127 gallons of oil per acre, respectively [31].

Recently it has been a greater focus on improving the

management of water services by the use of microalgae,

but how much impact archived in practice? Current

many microalgae biofuel projects of Biofuel Digest da-

tabases are pilots and demonstrations as well as did not

use the some recommendations of the ASP program in

particular the use of wastewater for cost down [1,32].

The NASA presents its latest technology based on five

square kilometers of plastic bags would be used to pro-

duce 2.4 million gallons of algae oil per year (today drop

in the bucket compared to the 800 million gallons of oil

the U.S. consumes every day). The setup has been tested

in four nine-meter-long plastic bags and the researchers

demonstrated that they can grow enough algae to pro-

duce nearly 2000 gallons of fuel per acre per year—if the

weather cooperates. Those systems involve recycling

human waste, but technological design will face many

challenges addressed to industrial manufacturing [33].

Since 1950-1960 the U.S. Berkeley Energy Biosciences

Institute (EBI) focused on combining municipal waste-

water treatment with algae as the most plausible model

for biofuels production in the near term. Their final ana-

lysis includes five conceptual facilities for algae pond

biofuel production, four of them 250 acres in size and

one of 1,000 acres [30]. The estimated capital costs for a

250-acre biofuel production system emphasizing micro-

algae oil production are about $21 million, with annual

operating costs at around $1.5 million, to produce about

12,300 barrels of oil, giving a break-even price per barrel

of oil of $330 (based on an 8 percent capital charge).

Increasing the scale of the system to 1,000 acres reduced

the break-even price to about $240 per barrel. These

prices considered wastewater treatment credits, which

reduced costs about 20%. Although, a significant number

of combined algae wastewater treatment biofuels facili-

ties could be located in the US (over 8000 existing mu-

nicipal wastewater treatment ponds (several thousand

small (<10 hectare) and a few large scale (>100 hectare)),

their aggregate contribution to US liquid fuel resources

would be minor—at best a small fraction of 1% of total

U.S. demand [30]. EBI scientists made following conclu-

sion “that algal oil production will be neither quick nor

plentiful—10 years is a reasonable projection for re-

search, development and demonstration to allow a con-

clusion about the ability to achieve, at least for specific

locations, relatively low-cost algal biomass and oil pro-

duction, cultivate stable cultures under outdoor condi-

tions while achieving both high productivities and oil

content, bioflocculation for algae harvesting take in ac-

count including racewa pond for microalgae cultivation,

and extraction of algae oil by the use of hexane”.

What can we do if objectives are not met in proving or

if progress is too slow? Can we design and implement

new management models across the waste hierarchy,

value chains and life cycles of products and processes to

dramatically reduce waste generated in the world and

increase biomass for value added product? What should

be done for Global Sustainable development as open

burning and open dumping of waste pose the biggest

risks? What novel type of management, technological

and economic approaches, systems design, policy, and

stewardship can be used for effectively waste manage-

ment through mitigation of waste landfilling, pyrolyses,

methane and carbon manufacturing as well as increase

effectiveness of wastewater cleaning?

Our findings on industrial wastewater provide that

concentration of N and organic components of municipal

wastewater are not sufficient for rapid accumulation

combined with high yield of Chlorella biomass [1]. The

second bottleneck on the use of municipal wastewater for

manufacturing of microalgae biomass is limit the appli-

cation of such biomass in some niches of market as mu-

nicipal wastewater contains dissolved heavy metal which

microalgae accumulate. Other bottlenecks are that mu-

nicipal Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) biological

ponds do not ensure optimal way for microalgae biomass

producing as they are large, unmixed, and thus heteroge-

neous systems, where is no possibility to manage the

algae culture and effective harvesting of biomass [30]

and has big water flow. Based on our findings it offered

apply integrally cascading steps for wastewater man-

agement with taking in the account that urban settlements

which are also the main source of point source pollution

with taking in account that technological development

creates more consumer goods introducing new toxic and

hazardous chemicals in urban wastewater [1]. Some of

such synthetic chemicals that are found in wastewater -

pesticides and pharmaceuticals are endocrine disruptors

[4]. The negative effects of these chemicals extend be-

yond the exposed individual, particularly affecting fe-

tuses of exposed pregnant women and breastfed children.

So, the waste management met global problem—indirect

impact of on human health and environment numerous

endocrine disruptors including unused and unwanted

Open Access JSBS

A. B. AVAGYAN 291

pharmaceuticals in the rivers, lakes, streams and drinking

waters as the survey show that consumers tend to dispose

a large part of their unwanted, unused and expired phar-

maceuticals in garbage, toilets, and sinks. Therefore the

developed countries exploit programs to better manage

unused pharmaceuticals at health care facilities and

pharmaceutical take-back programs [1,25,34-36]. How-

ever these programs are able to reduce the levels of phar-

maceuticals entering in the environment only on 10% to

15% and pharmaceuticals can pass through sewage treat-

ment plants and be released to the environment as WTP

are, in general, not designed to remove such chemicals

[34,37]. What kind of capacity and what risk prevention

strategies are required to break the vicious circle? It is

necessary to identify important wastewater management

service provide for solving of this global problem and

adaptation measures are needed urgently. Theory offer

integrally apply cascading steps for wastewater manage-

ment which Step 1 include cleaning of industrial waste-

water or water solution of solid bio-waste contained high

concentration of organic or toxic components in special-

ized installation up to degree meeting the requirements

for its transfer to the municipal WTP and giving priority

to the transformation of obtained microalgae biomass for

producing of value added product; Step 2—use of post-

processing wastewater contained residual quantities of

the microalgae for improvement treatment of wastewater

by two following ways: 1) in biological ponds with

saunter accumulation of microalgae biomass with further

separation for value added product cycles (zero waste so-

lution and zero activated sludge), 2) in aeration oxidation

ponds of the industrial WTP (containing of high concen-

tration of organic and toxic components) for creating of

the symbiosis between bacteria of activated sludge and

microalgae which is general way for improving man-

agement (Figure 1) [1]. Simultaneously, in addition it

offer new cost-beneficial, ecologically safe game chang-

ing approach, which include destruction pharmaceuticals

in water and next cleaning of solution by the use of above

listed two Steps approach and giving priority to the

transformation of obtained microalgae biomass for pro-

ducing of value added products instead they expensive in-

cineration at temperature above 1200˚C in the special

furnaces in order to prevent the pollution of atmosphere

by toxic products of combustion (dioxins and chlorinated

dibenzofurans) as well as the stack effluence including

HCl, CO, CO2, NOx with conservation of fossil fuel etc.

[1]. This approach based on our findings of high level

cleaning of wastewaters of Yerevan Chemical Reagents,

Yerevan Vitamin, Charensavan Lysine plants, etc. which

content are above equivalent to the mixture of pharma-

ceuticals [1].

The question of what strategic approach we should

Figure 1. Vision on application of microalgae for purifica-

tion of industrial wastewater and gas effluent as well as

improvement municipal wastewater treatment in wastewa-

ter treatment plant.

take in order to pursue an international climate protection

policy. With landfill finally being truly on the way out,

there plan genuine opportunities for investment in value-

adding solutions through reducing origin of GHG emis-

sion and their resource uses for producing value added

products as well as mitigation of effluent gases. Rou-

ghly one-third of the edible parts of food produced for

human consumption gets lost or wasted globally, which

is about 1.3 billion ton per year [38]. Food waste is more

a problem in industrialized countries, most often caused

by both retailers and consumers throwing perfectly edible

foodstuffs into the trash. Per capita waste by consumers

is between 95 - 115 kg per year in Europe and North

America. Simultaneously, food systems contribute 19% -

29% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions, releasing

9800 - 16,900 MtCO2Eq in 2008. Incorporating thermal

treatment solutions for MSW material can help waste

management companies to turn waste material with lim-

ited recycling value into a valuable resource [1,23]. The

thermal processing as thermal hydrolysis collected and

watered municipal solid bio-waste (through the use of

effluent gases of thermal power station, cement plants,

etc.) may create additional raw material for manufactur-

ing of microalgae biomass aimed to producing of value

added products (mitigation of solid waste and origin for

GHG emissions) with minimizing of landfilling, methane

and carbon production GHG [1].

To help illustrate the potential for GHG reduction and

avoidance opportunities from materials management pra-

ctices with the use microalgae provide the following

scenario. According EPA estimation the U.S. GNG emis-

sions totaled 6702 MtCO2Eq and the provision of food

contributes 13% in 2011 [5,6,39]. Therefore the thermal

hydrolyses of this biowaste allow they use as raw mate-

rial for microalgae biotechnological manufacturing and

can decrease GHG emissions up to 871.3 MtCO2Eq. Ac-

cording to the European data the base-year emissions for

the EU-15 is equivalent to 4,265.5 and for EU-12-132.6

MtCO2Eq [7,40]. The EU food and drink value chain is

responsible for 17% of direct GHG emission and 28% of

Open Access JSBS

A. B. AVAGYAN

292

material resource use [41,42]. Therefore application of

their food scraps by offered technology will decrease

GHG emissions up to 747.7 MtCO2Eq. Canada GHG

emissions estimated to 702 MtCO2Eq and food scraps

share is 12.7% [14]. The offered technology can decrease

its GHG emissions up to 89.2 MtCO2Eq.

Additional decreasing of GHG emissions expected by

the use industrial wastewaters (food, biotechnological

etc.) as well as solid other biowastes, unused and expired

pharmaceuticals etc. for nutrition of microalgae as well

as the use of effluent gases for thermal hydrolyses of

solid biowaste, heating and nutrition of microalgae [1].

On other hand, traditional “waste” management repre-

sents 1 to 5% of US GHG emissions [6]. In the U.S.

wastewater treatment accounts for 16.7% of waste emis-

sions and 1.5% of N2O emissions. Therefore the use ther-

mal hydrolyses of active sludge can decrease GHG emis-

sions up to 335 MtCO2Eq.

Seeing CO2 as a raw material and a potential recycla-

ble resource with great value added potential is an excel-

lent example is ENN 110 Mt CO2/yr micro-algae pilot

plant in China with developed photobioreactors (PBRs)

systems for carbon sequestration aimed to the develop-

ment of algae for biofuels and bioproducts [43]. How-

ever this project economic advantage is unknown. On

other hand the exhaust steam and effluent gas may be

used for heating and aeration of microalgae suspension in

biotechnological pools and cultivation microalgae around

the year with including of north countries with mitigation

of Climate change [1]. In addition the cultivation of mi-

croalgae promote also restoration share of O2 due photo-

synthesis.

Management defined also as human action, including

design, to facilitate the production of useful outcomes

from a system and managers must understand where and

how they can implement offered policies and strategies

based on identified also new product candidates. Climate

change is a central external driver that affects both water

and energy for all uses directly; mitigation measures are

concentrated around the reduction of GNG and biofuel

manufacturing aimed also to replacing some imported oil

by indigenously produced fuels and diversifying sources.

Around the world, an urgent demand for alternative, sus-

tainable fuels and feedstock is growing. The most crucial

subject in the debate over the sustainability of the 1G

biofuels has intensified over the impact of biofuels on

food prices and the merits and structure of biofuels man-

dates in the U.S. and EU [1,24,25,42,44-47]. The use of

agriculture plants for manufacturing of 1G biofuel could

lead to competition for water resources, both in terms of

physical availability and access to water, agriculture land

availability and food needs will also limit biofuels pro-

duction based on crops. In Washington, consensus is

beginning to emerge that the biofuel RFS in 2013 could

actually result in higher net feeding costs for livestock

and poultry producers [47] and the EC announces new

plans to support domestic advanced biofuels [46]. The

EC has vision that all biofuels made from food crops and

which do not lead to substantial GNG savings (when

emissions from ILUC are included) should not be subsi-

dized in the period after 2020 and represent a further

“wildcard”, ensure growth in advances biofuels that

come from feedstock that is not in competition with food

crops. These biofuels also do not pose problems related

to increased food prices as they do not come from food

crops. In the interim period, the EC proposal aims at sta-

bilizing the consumption of 1 G biofuels. For the fulfill-

ment of the 10% renewable energy target, the Member

States can only count 5% biofuels from food crops.

What about the cellulosic biofuel? The EC identifies a

number of uncertainties associated with the available

models and impose sustainability criteria that biofuels

and bioliquids which include provisions to prevent the

conversion of areas of high biodiversity and carbon sinks

such as forest and wetlands [48]. The U.S. definition of

cellulosic biomass specifically excludes biomass from

federal forests [49]. In 2012 U.S. Beta Renewables (BP)

and the Russell cancelled their projects to build a com-

mercial-scale wood biomass power plant based on eco-

nomical grounds as well as there are protests against their

air pollution and the impact that plant would have on the

forest [50-52]. Cellulosic biofuel have some potential,

but there are significant hurdles to overcome before

competitiveness and planned volume is reached [54].

Why are algae so exciting from a renewable energy

standpoint? For a summary number application lines and

the following reasons [1]: 1) Algae can be processed into

biodiesel, bioetanol, jet fuel, and biocrude; 2) Microalgae

water consumption of manufacturing is over 10 times as

low compared agricultural plants; 3) Algae are generally

more efficient converting solar energy due to their simple

cellular ultrastructure and immediate access to life sup-

port elements such as water, CO2 and nutrients, a higher

photon conversion efficiency (approximately 3% - 8%

against 0.5% for terrestrial plants which represents higher

biomass yields per hectare, according to U.S. National

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NPEL) algae can pro-

duce at least 10 - 100 times more biomass per hectare in

comparison with land plants as well as the oil yields in

litters/hectare/year for soybeans are 400, for palm oil to

6000 and microalgae—a minimum of 60,000; 4) Despite

several decades of experience in monitoring bioreactors

and refining cell culture operations, the production of

safe, pure and potent biologics remains a tricky business.

In compassion with other microorganisms and plants the

microalgae cultivation is more wasteless, ecologically

pure, energy and resource saving process. Algae use nu-

trients more efficiently than land plants. Unlike tradi-

Open Access JSBS

A. B. AVAGYAN 293

tional oilseed plants, the amount of pesticide and fertil-

izer use is virtually eliminated, resulting in less waste

and pollution; 5) Microalgae have uniform cell structures

with no bark, stems, branches or leaves, allowing easier

extraction of products and higher utilization of microal-

gae cells and their biomass production systems can be

easily adapted to various levels of operational and tech-

nological skills and the cellular uniformity of microalgae

makes it practical to manipulate and control growing

conditions for the optimization of cell properties. Micro-

algae originated value-added co-products or by-products

(e.g. proteins, polysaccharides, pigments, biopolymers,

animal feed, fertilizers, etc.; 6) Algae are excellent biore-

mediation agents—they have the potential to absorb mas-

sive amounts of CO2 up to 450 tons per acre when grown

commercially or over two billion tones of CO2 could be

captured by growing algae on the space equivalent to the

entire US soybean crop with mitigation of Climate change.

At last years the validity of microalgae approach con-

firms increasing of quantity of the Microalgae-to-Biofuel

projects according to the Biofuel Digest databases [32].

In the Shandong Province of the China under the joint

venture of the Australia’s Algae. Tec and Shandong

Kerui Group Holding Ltd was funded project for the

construction of a 250-module algae biofuels facility

which will be the first of its size and type in the world

with produce approximately 33 million liters of algae

derived transport oil and approximately 33,000 tones of

biomass per annum at a combined value of over $40 mil-

lion, and capture 137,000 tones of waste carbon dioxide

[55]. This project will be additional contribution of other

foreign companies in development of microalgae pro-

ducing in the China [1].

Biotechnology research goals include finding ways to

increase the reproductive rate, improve metabolism of

inputs, and enhance the production of desired oils,

fuel-grade alcohols, proteins and other useful compo-

nents. Anticipated approaches include improvement of

strains through mutation treatment by a physical method

(such as ultraviolet irradiation) or a chemical method

(such as the use of chemicals). Currently a different and

complimentary approach to increase productivity of mi-

croalgae is via genetic and metabolic engineering [1,30,

56,57]. Genetic engineering techniques are employed to

enable algae to more predictably produce desired lipids

for biofuels, alcohols, proteins, enzymes and other mole-

cules, or carbohydrate—rich biomass for bioprocessing.

Since microalgae may be dispersed by wind or by fauna,

open pond systems can introduce algal strains to the sur-

rounding environment. For genetic engineering strain

pond systems covered by thin plastic films and combina-

tion closed/open systems are being developed to control

these factors [30].

A process for production of biofuels from algae can

include also cultivating an oil-producing algae in tank

and converting the algal oil to biodiesel by promoting

sequential photoautotrophic and heterotrophic growth

[58]. Genifuel Corporation patents offered to cultivate

microalgae in a sugar feed for the production of ethanol

by harvesting starch-accumulating filament-forming or

colony-forming algae, initiating cellular decay of the

biomass in a dark and anaerobic environment, fermenting

the biomass in the presence of a yeast, and the isolating

the ethanol produced [59]. Solazyme move to manufac-

ture microalgae oils at a cost below $1000 per metric ton

or $0.91 per litter if produced by using the same stan-

dard industrial fermenters (128,000-liter) in commercial

plant [60].

Economic analysis is an essential evaluation for con-

sidering feasibility and viability of large-scale, photo-au-

totrophic algae-based, biofuel production. The updated

cost comparison based on a normalized set of input as-

sumptions was found to greatly reduce economic vari-

ability, resulting in algal oil production costs ranging

from $10.87 gallon−1 to $13.32 gallon−1 [61]. Simultane-

ously, it was shown that the cost of lipid production to

achieve a 10% return was determined to be $8.52/gal for

open ponds and $18.10/gal for PBRs [62].

However the development of microalgae-to-biofuels is

still in its infancy, there are still many conflicting results

and knowledge gaps related to a coupled wastewater

treatment and algae cultivation system as well as nowa-

days studies have demonstrated the feasibility of a cou-

pled system for the treatment of wastewater and cultiva-

tion of algae for biofuels only on a small scale and addi-

tional lab scale testing is needed to determine the most

efficient reactor design and operation methods when us-

ing wastewater as a water and nutrient source for algae

cultivation as well as issues related to high energy use

and cost in PBR and low productivity in open 40 ponds

must be resolved in order to determine which system is

the most effective as this technology develops in order to

effectively couple the algae cultivation [63]. Major chal-

lenges to the implementation of an integrated system

include the large-scale production of algae and the har-

vesting of microalgae in a way that allows for down-

stream processing to produce biofuels and other bio-

products of value according to the patent survey [64] and

report on treating municipal and industrial wastewater by

using algae which provided detailed descriptions and

results for nearly 50 research attempts in the field of al-

gae-based industrial wastewater treatment and lists the

companies in algae-based wastewater treatment systems

and their profiles [65]. Therefore further investigation

and development of large-scale production and harvest-

ing methods of microalgae for biofuels and bio-products

are necessary regard to large-scale production of algae

include nutrient supply and recycling, gas transfer and

exchange, photosynthetically active radiation, delivery,

Open Access JSBS

A. B. AVAGYAN

294

culture integrity, environment control, land and water

availability, and harvesting [64].

Simultaneously, among the different types of policy

tools available, incentives most effectively when linked

to production rather than investment [53]. The full proc-

essing of microalgae biomass resides decrease cost of

manufacturing. Therefore Theory provide cost effective

application of microalgae biomass with building product

and technology roadmaps, manufacturing of value added

products—biofuel, biopharmaceuticals, food, feed and

perfumery additives [1]. On other hand in order to

achieve approval, microalgae products originated by the

use of some waste should satisfy the Safety and Interna-

tional Standards regulating production with avoiding in

any case the introduction of heavy metals or cumulative

contaminants that could pass to the human chain con-

sumption. Algae Biomass Organisation Technical Stan-

dards Committee is tasked on developing and advocating

algal industry standards and best practices by providing a

framework for evaluating industrial inputs including land,

materials, and manpower; outputs including products and

waste; and processes and regulations with the industry

will interface with the outside world with creating a

source of reliable information that can be used by exist-

ing standards setting agencies to adapt existing product,

testing, and manufacturing standards to the all this new

industry. In most cases their clarifications written into

existing standards that account for the particular charac-

teristics of the algae industry as a product source [66].

One of obstacle for the implementation product to market

is the costs for approval. According to the Algae feed the

most relevant entity establishing feed safety interna-

tional standards is IFIF—International Feed Industry

Federation [67]. The FAO responses on test of fish algae

supplement based on standard control diet [68]. Other

approach is establishing of separate specific standards for

each algal product. In 1970s the former USSR was de-

veloped All-Union State Standard 22455-77 of the algae

feeding meal or groats and All-Union State Standards

64-17-03-87 and 64-17-03-89 for perfumery additives

which adopted for CIS countries [1]. Megatro seaweed

powder product use China standard Specification Q/

02MYZ008-2006 [69]. Such approach on development

specific standards and Technical Specifications seems as

more preferable, can viewed as a more effective means

of ensuring that products meet the essential health and

safety requirements and provides safeguards against un-

fair competition, fraud in case of market update of poor

quality products from producers and must be applied for

strengthen standardisation addressed to speedily intro-

duction of achievements in industry.

3. Conclusions

We cannot afford to dismiss any of above listed ap-

proaches prematurely. However the possibility of waste-

water and watered municipal solid bio-waste use as raw

material for manufacturing of microalgae provides that

there it has not deficit of raw materials and the process

can be implemented on the lands, which is no applicable

for agriculture and tanks to transform the concept of

waste from one of resource abandonment to a model

which all elements along the waste value chain create

economic, societal and/or environmental value. The re-

cycling of waste materials by the use of microalgae, and

thus the minimizing of the generation of waste are a ba-

sic concept which must be implemented in order to meet

the new demands of sustainable development. Climate

change is not only a major threat, but—in terms of tech-

nology—it is a challenge that can give birth to business

opportunities based on innovations. Offered sustainable

concept and cost effective plan of actions grounded some

millions years of the Nature experience and latest find-

ings, are convenient for policymakers, do not require

legislative framework which will provide a number of

tax grants and support for renewable energy producers,

directly contribute to the success of environmental policy

and the transition process toward bioeconomy and in-

clude global sustainable solution for wastewater man-

agement and restoration of water resource, mitigation

solid waste and climate change, the improvement in hu-

man health through developing cost effective microalgae

technologies which increase accessibility of biomass

addressed to creation of market opportunities to follow-

ing competitive products: biofuel, microalgae feed addi-

tives (become the best choice for improvement of quality

of functional food and cost effective producing animal,

poultry and fish with increasing their resistance to dis-

eases), food and perfumery additives and biopharmaceu-

ticals [1]. Our pilot business plan confirms economic

viability that the use of microalgae in waste management

can decrease cost of feedstock for manufacturing of

competitive value added products [1]. Microalgae was

the key tool for life development on the earth; at present,

algae produce approximately 50% - 70% of the atmos-

pheric oxygen and is natural cleaner of global water re-

source. It is an approved choice of nature. So, there is

hope for our offered solutions. Our strategy believes that

the use of microalgae will be our adequate answer ad-

dressing to unsustainable technological improvements

and climate change, thus leading to resolution of global

tasks facing the world community through finding of

optimum ways for solution of these problems on how to

receive raw material for sustainable production with

fundamental change of our future.

Fine-tuning a strategy for improving of environment

protection depends on many factors, but one thing is

clear: Governance, Funds and Companies generally must

see the advantage of investing in biotechnological

Open Access JSBS

A. B. AVAGYAN 295

game-changing approach, to improve these processes and

increasingly look at such investments as economically,

environmentally and socially effective impacts. Theory

vision will be needed for the development of Global Life

Conserve Industry-led Platforms. Who gains from driving

forward our vision? The creating of the dominant gap

from non efficient protection of environment to its culti-

vation in a large scale by the use of microalgae will be

able to use the windows of opportunity formed by the

landscape change toward new design & build biological

system, combined with the prospect of the improvement

manufacturing of value added product and will serve

future sustainable development of life. The difficulties in

realizing all in the time frame of our analysis do not jus-

tify inaction or delay, which would raise the long-term

economic, security and environmental cost.

REFERENCES

[1] A. B. Avagyan, “Theory of Global Sustainable Develop-

ment Based on including of Microalgae in Bio and Indus-

trial Cycles. New Design and Building of Biological

Sytem,” 2013.

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Sustainable-Developme

nt-including-microalgae/dp/1484000331/ref=pd_rhf_cr_p

_t_1_5BR4

http://www.amazon.com/Armen-Avagyan/e/B00A7OOIG

[2] EPA, “Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S.: Facts and Fig-

ures,” 2011.

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm

[3] EPA, “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and

Disposal in the U.S.: Facts and Figures for 2010,” 2012.

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/ms

w_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf

[4] UN, “World Water Development Report (WWDR4),”

UNESKO, 2012.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environm

ent/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr4-2012/

[5] EPA, “National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data,” 2011.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinven

toryreport.html

http://www.smartenergyuniverse.com/spotlight/15371-ep

a-publishes-18th-annual-u-s-greenhouse-gas-inventory

[6] EPA, “Climate and Waste Statistics,” 2013.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/climate-change-waste/

[7] EEA, “Greenhouse gas Emission Trends and Projections

in Europe,” 2012.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ghg-trends-and-pr

ojections-2012/at_download/file

[8] Pike Research, “Waste-to-Energy Technology Markets,”

2012.

http://www.pikeresearch.com/research/waste-to-energy-te

chnology-markets

[9] B. Messenger, “European Waste to Energy Technology

Market to Hit $5 Billion,” Waste Management Wo rld, 2013.

http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/2013/

02/european-waste-to-energy-technology-market-to-hit-5-

billion.html

[10] EC, “Green Paper on the Management of Bio-Waste in

the European Union. Climate Change and Food Systems,”

COM(2008) 811 final. {SEC(2008) 2936} (2008), 2008.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=

COM:2008:0811:FIN:EN:PDF

[11] Confederation of European waste-to-energy plants, “Re-

cycling and Waste-to-Energy in Combination for Sus-

tainable Waste Management,” 2012.

http://www.cewep.eu/m_1038

Energy Report III. 2012. http://www.cewep.eu/m_1069

[12] J. Ewald, “Carbon Dioxide at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Ob-

servatory Reaches New Milestone: Tops 400 ppm,” 2013.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/in_defense_of_car

bon_dioxide/https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/7992

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/7992

[13] EPA, “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data,” 2005.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.h

tml

[14] Emergent Waste Solutions, “Mergent Waste Solutions

Deploys the Unique APS® Technology, Capable of An-

swering the Global Challenge of Waste Disposal,” 2013.

http://www.emergentwastesolutions.com

[15] A. Bennett, “Wastewater Treatment and Energy Produc-

tion,” Filtration & Separation, Vol. 44, No. 10, 2007, pp.

16-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0015-1882(07)70319-1

[16] Solid Waste Association of North America, “Waste-to-

Energy Facilities Provide Significant Economic Bene-

fits,” 2012.

http://swana.org/portals/Press_Releases/Economic_Benef

its_WTE_WP.pdf

[17] D. Hoornweg, “Talking Heads. Megacities,” Waste

Management World, 2012, p. 66.

http://delivery.qmags.com/d/?pub=WMW&upid=16794&

s=OL&fl=others%2fWMW%2fWMW_20120301_Mar_2

012.pdf

http://online.qmags.com/WMW0312#pg1&mode2

[18] SBI Bulletin, “Waste to Energy Markets to Grow 11.2%

Annually Through 2021,” 2012.

http://www.sbireports.com/about/release.asp?id=2872

[19] Environmental Expert, “2nd Annual Waste Conversion

Congress East Coast 2012,” 2012.

http://www.environmental-expert.com/events/2nd-annual-

waste-conversion-congress-east-coast-2012-12734

[20] D. Kiernan, “Waste to Biofuels Set for Growth But Indus-

try Must Remain Realistic.” Waste Management World,

2012.

http://www.alternativeoutlook.co.uk/2012/05/waste-to-bi

ofuels-set-for-growth-but-industry-must-remain-realistic/

http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/2012/

05/waste-to-biofuels-set-for-growth-but-industry-must-re

main-realistic.html

[21] V. R. Surisetty, J. Kozinski and A. K. Dalai, “Biomass,

Availability in Canada, and Gasification: An Overview,”

Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2012,

pp. 73-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13399-011-0024-0

[22] P. French, M. Cuddeford and J. A. Cody, “Waste to En-

Open Access JSBS

A. B. AVAGYAN

296

ergy: Investment Landscape. Renewable Waste Markets

Report 2012-13,” 2012.

http://www.renewable-waste.com/markets-report/pdf/WC

T-Investment-Landscape-Whitepaper.pdf?utm_source=htt

p%3a%2f%2fus.renewable-waste.com%2ffc_fcbi1lz%2f

&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2144+%2b+Whit

epaper+BD&utm_term=Your+complimentary+renewable

+waste+investment+landscape+analysis&utm_content=2

39408

[23] M. Chrusciak, “European Waste to Energy Plant Market,”

2013.

http://www.frost.com/sublib/display-report.do?searchQue

ry=Monika+Chrusciak&id=M8EE-01-00-00-00&bdata=a

HR0cDovL3d3dy5mcm9zdC5jb20vc3JjaC9jYXRhbG9n

LXNlYXJjaC5kbz9xdWVyeVRleHQ9TW9uaWthK0Noc

nVzY2lha0B%2BQFNlYXJjaCBSZXN1bHRzQH5AMT

M3MTE5NzE5MjUxMQ%3D%3D

[24] A. B. Avagyan, “A Contribution to Global Sustainable

Development: Inclusion of Microalgae and Their Biomass

in Production and Bio Cycles”, Clean Technologies and

Environmental Policy, Vol.10, No. 4, 2008, pp. 313-317.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-008-0180-5

[25] A. B. Avagyan, “New Design & Build Biological System

Addressed to Global Environment Management and Sus-

tainable Development through including Microalgae and

Their Biomass in Production and Bio Cycles,” Journal of

Environmental Protection, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2010, pp.

183-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jep.2010.12023

[26] International Renewable Energy Agency, “Evaluating

Policies in Support of the Deployment of Renewable

Power,” Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2012.

http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/

Evaluating_policies_in_support_of_the_deployment_of_r

enewable_power.pdf

[27] P. J. van der Aar, “Biofuels: Implications for the Feed

Industry,” In: J. Doppenberg and Piet van der Aar, Eds.,

Biofuels, 2007, pp. 11-13,

http://www.contextbookshop.com/books/book_detail.php

?bookcat=17&bookid=171.

[28] M. Briggs, “Widescale Biodiesel Production from Al-

gae,” University of New Hampshire, 2004.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060324084858/http://www.

unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

[29] J. Sheehan, T. Dunahay, J. Benemann and P. Roessler, “A

Look Back at the US Department of Energy’s Aquatic

Species Program: Biodiesel from Algae,” 2006.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_fro

m_algae.pdf.

[30] T. J. Lundquist, I. C. Woertz, N. W. T. Quinn and J. R.

Benemann, “A Realistic Technology and Engineering

Assessment of Algae Biofuel Production,” Berkeley: Re-

port of Energy Biosciences Institute University of Cali-

fornia, 2010.

http://esd.lbl.gov/files/about/staff/nigelquinn/EBI_Algae_

Biofuel_Report_2010.10.25.1616.pdf

[31] Oilgae, “Energy from Algae, products, market, processes,

strategies. Algae Oil Information,” Comprehensive Re-

port, 2008. http://www.oilgae.com/algae/oil/oil.html

[32] J. Lane, “Advanced Biofuels Tracking Databases,” Biofu-

els Digest, 2010-2012.

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/03/23/advan

ced-biofuels-tracking-database/

http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdgest/2011/01/14/10-advanced

-biofuelsprojects-now-planned-in-advanced-biofuels/

http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=advanced%

20biofuels%20project%20database%20(release%202.04)

&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CGEQFjAH&url=http%3A

%2F%2Fwww.ascension-publishing.com%2FBIZ%2FA

BTDv204.xls&ei=MoqET7yXBsnGtAaUwem1Bg&usg=

AFQjCNFET9UBdZzRqotWaKUsGv9X0XuIoQ)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.biofuels

digest.com/bdigest/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ABPD-Q

312.xls&usg=AFQjCNEZi8bLKw1g5KB8lRf6WWLW8

2_LzQ

[33] K. Bullis, “NASA Wants to Launch Floating Algae

Farms,” Technology Review, MIT, 2012.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40120/page1/

[34] E. Gagnon, “Pharmaceutical Disposal Programs for the

Public: A Canadian Perspective,” Health Canada Envi-

ronmental Impact Initiative, 2009.

http://www.enviroadvisory.com/pdf/Takeback.pdf

[35] EU “Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Commu-

nity Code Relating to Medicinal Products for Human

Use,” Official Journal L 311, pp. 67

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=

CONSLEG:2001L0083:20070126:en:PDF

[36] N. Savransky, “Pharmaceuticals in the Water. A Look at

an Emerging and Pressing Issue,” 2012.

http://www.mass.gov/dep/toxics/stypes/pharmh2o.pdf

[37] J. Gunderson, “Water Treatment: Chemical and Pharma-

ceutical Industries,” Water World, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2012, p. 5.

http://www.waterworld.com/articles/iww/print/volume-12

/issue-05/feature-editorial/water-treatment-chemical-and-

pharmaceutical-industries.html

[38] J. Gustavsson, C. Cederberg, U. Sonesson and R. O. A.

Meybeck, “Global Food Losses and Food Waste Extent,

Causes and Prevention,” FAO, 2011.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf

[39] EPA, “Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emis-

sions through Materials and Land Management Prac-

tices,” 2009.

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/ghg_land_and_materials

_management.pdf

[40] EEA, “Annual European Union Greenhouse Gas Inven-

tory 1990-…2011 and Inventory Report 2013,” 2013.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-gr

eenhouse-gas-inventory-2013

[41] Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising Waste Pre-

vention Strategies, “About Food Waste,” 2013.

http://www.eu-fusions.org/about-food-waste

[42] International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook,”

OECD/IEA, Paris, 2006.

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publicati

on/weo2006.pdf

[43] G. Sun, “US-China Cooperative Work on Carbon Capture,

Use and Storage,” US-China Energy Centre, 2012.

http://www.egcfe.ewg.apec.org/publications/proceedings/

CFE/Austrailia_2012/2A-3_Sun.pdf

Open Access JSBS

A. B. AVAGYAN

Open Access JSBS

297

[44] OPEC, “World Oil Outlook,” 2008.

http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media

/downloads/publications/WOO%202008.pdf

[45] R. Troustle, D. Marti, S. Rosen and P. Westcott, “Why

Have Food Commodity Prices Risen Again?” USDA, 2012.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/126752/wrs1103.pdf

http://www.national-economists.org/gov/trostle11.pdf

[46] EC, “Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC),” MEMO/12/787,

2012.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-787_en.ht

m?locale=en

[47] J. Lane, “RFS Waiver Could Raise Feed Costs for Live-

stock, Dairy Producers: New Study,” Biofuels Digest, 2012.

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2012/10/11/rfs-wa

iver-could-raise-feed-costs-for-livestock-dairy-producers-

new-study/

[48] EC, “Biofuels: Commission Adopts Report on Indirect

Land Use Change,” Europe Press Releases, 2010.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=

IP/10/1772&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&gu

iLanguage=en

[49] K. Bracmor, R. Schnepf, M. Stubbs and B. D. Yacobucci,

“Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Con-

gress,” 2010.

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL34738.p

[50] J. Lane, “The October Surprise: BP Cancels Plans for US

Cellulosic Ethanol Plant,” Biofuels Digest, 2012.

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2012/10/26/the-oc

tober-surprise-bp-cancels-plans-for-us-cellulosic-ethanol-

plant/

[51] M. Cichon, “Russell Biomass Plant Cancelled: The Start

of an Industry Trend?” Renewable Energy World, 2012.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2

012/10/russell-biomass-plant-cancelled-the-start-of-an-in

dustry-trend?cmpid=BioNL-Tuesday-October30-2012

[52] T. LaBorde, “Russell Biomass Power Plant Partners Can-

cel Project,” Mass Live, 2012.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/10/partner

s_in_russell_biomass_po.html

[53] U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Biofuels Issues

and Trends,” U.S. Department of Energy, 2012.

http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/issuestrends/pdf/bit.pdf

[54] International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook,”

OECD/IEA, Paris, 2011, 660p.

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2

011/weo2011_energy_for_all.pdf

[55] Admin, “Algae.Tec, Shandong Kerui for Algal Biofuels

JV in China,” Biofuel Dighest, 2012.

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2012/01/19/algae-

tec-shandong-kerui-for-algal-biofuels-jv-in-china/

[56] Y. Chisti, “Biodiesel from Microalgae Beats Bioethanol,”

Trends in Biotechnology, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2008, pp. 126-

131. http://www.massey.ac.nz/~ychisti/Trends08.pdf

[57] R. Radakovits, R. E. Jinkerson, A. Darzins and M. C.

Posewitz, “Genetic Engineering of Algae for Enhanced

Biofuel Production,” Eukaryotic Cell, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2010,

486-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/EC.00364-09

[58] SciTech Patent Art Patent Tracker, “Patenting Trends in

Algae Based Biofuels,” Hyderabad, 2013.

http://www.patent-art.com/NewsImages/nw12/PatentingT

rendsinAlgaebasedBiofuels.pdf

[59] Genifuel Corporation, “Integrated Processes and Systems

for Production of Biofuels Using Algae,” US patent No.

7977076 B2, 2011.

http://www.google.com/patents/US7977076?printsec=abs

tract&dq=ininventor:%22James+R.+Oyler%22&ei=Ujk8

UYmoMs3MPbrzgPgO#v=onepage&q&f=false; “Process

of Producing Oil from Algae Using Biological Ruptur-

ing,” US Patent No. US20120285077 A1, 2012.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20120285077?dq=inin

ventor:%22James+R.+Oyler%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DjY

8UZOqAsKkO82GgJAL&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ

[60] J. Lane, “Solazyme Files Its Expected IPO, But in Its S-1

Are Unexpected Progress on Costs, Capacity, and a Surge

of Offtake Orders; But Can the Company Make Oil Fast

Enough to Meet the Demand and Capture All the Oppor-

tunities?” Biofiel Dighest, 2011.

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/03/15/solazy

me-files-100m-ipo/

[61] A. Sun, R. Davis, M. Starbuck, A. Ben-Amotz, R. Pate

and P. T. Pienkos, “Comparative Cost Analysis of Algal

Oil Production for Biofuels,” Energy, Vol. 36, No. 8,

2011, pp. 5169-5179.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.06.020

[62] R. Davis, A. Aden and P. T. Pienko, “Techno-Economic

Analysis of Autotrophic Microalgae for Fuel Production,”

Applied Energy, Vol. 88, No. 10, 2011, pp. 3524-3531.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.04.018

[63] M. C. Rothermel, “Coupling the Wastewater Treatment

Process with an Algal Photobioreactor for Nutrient Re-

moval and Renewable Resource Production,” University

of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 2011.

http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/8395/1/RothermelMonicaSu

mmer2011.pdf

[64] L. Christenson and R. Sims, “Production and Harvesting

of Microalgae for Wastewater Treatment, Biofuels, and

Bioproducts,” Biotechnology Advances, Vol. 29, No. 6,

2011, pp. 686-702.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.05.015

[65] Oligae, “Oligae Guide to Algae-Based Waste- water

Treatment,” 2010.

http://www.oilgae.com/ref/downloads/Wastewater_Treat

ment_Using_Algae_Report_Preview.pdf

[66] ABO, “Algae Industry Minimum Descriptive Language:

Guidance to Evaluate Life Cycle Inputs and Outputs,”

Technical Standards Committee, 2012.

http://www.algaebiomass.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/0

9/ABO-MDL-5.0-WEB-VERSION-Sept-2012.pdf

[67] Algae4feed, 2013. http://www.algae4feed.org/

[68] FAO, “Algae,” FAO, 2013.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1141e/i1141e01.pdf

[69] Megatro, 2013.

http://www.ttnet.net/ttnet/gotoprd/CC240/020/0/1383639

383831343633363435303539303038323634313.htm