Ben Scott

Envs 175
Prof. Mulvaney
August 20, 2009
Algae Biofuel
INTRODUCTION
Humans have utilized algae, and products derived from it, since
the year 530 AD (Pulz and Gross 2004). In Japan macro-algae
cultivation for agar-agar production can be traced back to 1640. By the
18th century brown algae was being used to produce iodine and soda.
Its utility was further exploited by Alfred Nobel, who famously used a
combination of diatomite, fossilized micro-algal biomass, and
nitroglycerine to create dynamite (Dolley 2000). More recently,
growing concern over the costs of fossil fuel, both economically and
environmentally, coupled with increasing energy demands and fear of
environmental harm from global warming, has spurred new ways of
thinking how to power our planet. One source of potential energy being
pursued by scientists, entrepreneurs, major energy companies, and
environmental activists are biofuels.
BIOFUEL
Although “biofuels” have been used by Homo sapiens for
thousands of years the definition that this author will use in this paper
is as follows: biofuels are “any type of liquid or gaseous fuel that can
be produced from biomass substrates and that can be used as a
(partial) substitute to fossil fuels (Giampietro 1997). Methanol, ethanol,
and biodiesel are the three most common examples of biofuels.
Processing wood biomass into liquid fuel produces methanol. Ethanol is
made by converting sugar molecules into alcohol, which, as a
combustible liquid, is used as fuel (Giampietro 1997). Biodiesel is
produced through transesterfication: the conversion of oil into fatty
ester, also known as “biodiesel” (Demirbas 2007). All of these biofuels
can be produced from a variety of biomasses derived from different
organic species. Biodiesel, however, is more attractive than the other
fuels because of its higher energy content and ability to be converted

1
into jet fuel, which is just one of the many benefits touted by the
proponents of algae biodiesel (Chisti 2008)(Patil et al 2008).
BIOFUEL GENERATIONS
The recent history of biofuels can be categorized into three
technology eras or “generations.” Biofuel produced from food crops
such as corn and soybeans characterize the first generation. These
food-crop biofuels, have been, and are currently, supported through
government market supports, such as subsidies and tariffs on foreign
sources. Issues of food security, net energy gain, resource allocation,
and economic viability raised by first generation biofuels led to the
creation of second generation of biofuels: those produced on marginal
lands from non-food sources. Energy from second-generation biofuels
is produced from the ligin in grasses and trees. Using these sources
would avoid many problems of the problems raised by first generation
biofuels. However, issues such as loss of biodiversity, potential
invasiveness, and cost effectiveness of second-generation biofuels
remain unanswered (Scharlemann and Laurance 2008)(DiTomaso et al
2007). Enter the third generation of biofuels: Algae.
Microalgae need sunlight, carbon dioxide and water to grow, all of
which are cheap and readily available, making it a potential
sustainable energy source (Chisti 2008). Issues of scaling up and
reducing production costs, however, mean that without further
investment and research, commercial scale production is far from
reality. As an industry, it is in an infant stage, and as it develops, given
proper investment, technologies enabling efficient will be developed
and large-scale commercial production will be achieved. The
attractiveness of algal biofuel is due to its compatibility with abundant
input resources as well as its lower total land use as compared with
other biofuels. This author feels that it is imperative, however, that the
industry be regulated in a manner which allows for innovation and
diversification rather than privatization and withholding of knowledge

2
which would hinder the ultimate goal of creating an alternative to fossil
fuels. In addition, in order to protect the environment and prevent
industry lag in compliance, protocols governing the management of
any engineered algae should be developed prior to, rather than after,
the development and implementation of commercial scale production.
HISOTRY OF INDUSTRY
The birth of the algae biodiesel industry began in 1976 under the
Carter Administration. Only three years earlier, the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries oil embargo, and subsequent oil crisis
inspired new ways of thinking in regards to our energy sources.
President Carter, motivated by this crisis, created the Aquatic Species
Program to pursue the use of marine biomass as a fuel source. From
1976 to 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy, under the program,
explored algae’s potential as a renewable source of transportation fuel
(Sheehan et al 1996). This preliminary research laid the groundwork
for the current algae biofuel industry today. Prior to this work, no
collection existed that classified algal species and varieties by their
ability to produce natural oils or their tolerances to extreme
environmental conditions (Sheehan et al 1996). A collection of over
3000 strains was assembled, of which 300 selected due to their
desirable characteristics. The program was groundbreaking in its
application of biotechnology to plant species; researchers successfully
isolated the enzyme Acetyl CoA Carboxylase (ACCase) from a diatom,
process and gene that have both been patented (Sheehan et al 1996).
Since the dismantling of the Aquatic Species Program under the Clinton
administration, the collection of algal varieties has been stored at the
University of Hawaii.
COMPARISON TO FOOD
Unlike the transgenic food debate, criticism of algal biofuels has
not manifested itself as a broad front of opponents calling for total
rejection of the technology. Research in both industries is driven in

3
part by public and private partnerships. Fortunately, for the algal
biofuel industry, this arrangement has not resulted in the “blanket
dissaproval” that is associated with transgenic foods (Stone 2002).
Another reason that environmental activists have not been quick to
condemn algal biofuels is that, compared with other biofuel sources,
such as food crops, it requires minimal amounts of land and will not
affect food supplies. Approximately 5.3 million hectares, or 3% of U.S.
cropland, could produce enough biofuel to meet the current
consumption demand. In comparison, palm oil, which is one of the
most productive oil crops, would require 111 million hectares, or 61%,
of U.S. cropland (Chisti 2008). Algae production is relatively
independent of the laws of nature that affect agricultural production. In
addition, algae can double its biomass within 24 hours, a phenomenon
not achievable by other biomass crop types (Chisti 2008).
CURRENT TECHNOLOGY
Initial research by the Aquatic Research Program used open pond
systems to cultivate microalgae. These ponds were successful at
producing large amounts of biomass. However, issues of land use cost,
water availability, appropriate climatic conditions, and contamination
by fungi, bacteria and other microalgae led to the general
abandonment of such technology and the development of
photobioreactors (Patil 2008). Although much more expensive,
photobioreactors are closed system environments in which the levels
of light, C02, and temperature are controllable. In addition, these closed
environments prevent unwanted contamination from other organisms.
Despite these advantages, the economic viability of mass-producing
algae biodiesel is undetermined for the near future. Enter
biotechnology.
ROEL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
The low cost method of using open pond systems to grow the
algae could be viable with genetically engineered algae. Algae survival

4
could increase with the use of herbicide-resistant strains, eliminating
the risk of contamination by other algae, fungi or bacteria. Increased
growth and oil content could increase yields. Engineering higher
carbon uptake and tolerance would increase growth rates. Developing
temperature-tolerant strains would allow for year-long outdoor growth
uninhibited by cool temperatures. Increasing photobioreactor efficiency
is one area that has already been successfully achieved in the
laboratory. Photosynthesis per unit chlorophyll was increased by 80%,
allowing for greater light saturation during maximum noon sunlight.
When bred with a wild relative, this attribute was eliminated, reducing
the biological hazard if to spread outside the cultivation area (Gressel
2008). Gressel (2008) believes that by creating highly specialized
strains, e.g., ones that survive only in non-naturally occurring carbon-
saturated environments, it would render them unfit for survival in the
wild.
PROPONENTS
The carbon produced by algal biofuels is recaptured during its
growth (Chisti 2008). Proponents of algal biodiesel point to its carbon
neutrality as an environmentally friendly feature, one that is used in
the argument support its use as a replacement for oil. This claim of
carbon neutrality is partially true; however, concerns have been raised
that the energy inputs needed for production that could potentially
make algal biodiesel a net carbon producer. Unlike first-generation
biofuels, algal biodiesel is subject to the “Food or Fuel” paradigm that
was a major concern with agricultural crops. As another potential
benefit, algae could also use wastewater as a median for nutrient
uptake, acting as a natural filter to a low cost, abundant nutrient
source that would otherwise cause environmental harm if released into
the water sources.
A highly integrated algal biodiesel production system reduces
waste products while taking advantage of cheap, abundant input

5
sources. The residual biomass from oil extraction could be used partly
as high protein animal feed and, possibly, as the source of small
amounts of other high-value microalgal products, helping to reduce the
obstacles of the high cost of biodiesel production (Patil et al 2008).
MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS
Seeing potential for profit, the major energy companies have
invested in the research and production of algal biodiesel. Chevron has
partnered with U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable
Laboratory to develop algae biodiesel technology. Chevron is also a
direct investor in Solazyme, a company that has genetically
engineered microalgae to replicate using sugar, not carbon, as an
energy feedstock. The resulting biomass can then be turned into
ethanol rather than biodiesel. Shell has made similar investments in
microalgae biodiesel companies. The most controversial partnership to
date, however, is between the University of California and British
Petroleum (Sopolsa 2009). They have formed Energy Biosciences
Institute, which also includes the University of Illinois and the
Lawrence-Berkeley National Laboratory. Under the partnership, British
Petroleum (BP) will provide $500 million in funding over ten years. In
return for their investment, BP will receive non-exclusive, royalty-free
licensing to any open-research discovery. The collaboration means that
50 BP-employed scientists will work in the public University’s labs
(Burris 2007). ExxonMobil has invested $300 million into Craig Venter’s
company Synthetic Genomics (Garthwaite 2009). Venter, who
famously mapped the human genome, wants to create synthetic DNA
to create new organisms and increase the “desired” traits of existing
ones. Given the uncertainties of the consequences surrounding the
current widespread adoption of transgenic organisms, synthetic
biology is “dangerously premature”(Curaso 2006).
As Curaso notes, scientists have mentality that their expert
knowledge gives them a mandate to guide the development and

6
application of their research for the betterment of mankind. This
attitude is strengthened by the millions of dollars being poured into
research both public and private, with the lines often blurring between
the two realms (2006). Opponents are speaking out against such
partnerships. Ignacio Chapela, a vocal critique of Berkeley’s past
ventures with Novartis, observes that under Berkeley’s new contract
with BP, alternative research will no longer be pursued, the only
research conducted must be able to be commoditized and privatized in
order to create a monetary profit for the owners of it (Chapela 2007).
Furthermore the environmental harm caused by eutrophication and
algal blooms has is a well-documented phenomena (Anderson et al
2002). The affect of the release of Bio-engineered algae into the wild
poses an unknown risk, one that should not be accidently found out.
CONCLUSION
This author believes algae biofuel have immense potential to
replace fossil fuels. This technology, however, must not be rapidly
applied once commercial scale production is available. The guidance of
scientific experts must be questioned and their agendas thoroughly
examined to avoid irreparable social and environmental costs. Using
the Precautionary Principle, the appropriate institutional regulatory
bodies must create protocol to minimize the risk of environmental
harm before it occurs. Current protocols, which regulate transgenic
food, should not serve as a model for algal biofuel regulations.
Appropriate industry protocols should be drafted which include equal
representation and input by from all stakeholders. Ideally, increased
government investment would reduce the need for University-
Corporate partnerships, however, under our current policies’ economic
structures this seems an unlikely reality. We are faced with a looming
environmental crisis that needs a diverse array of solutions as soon as
possible. Patents and privatization of knowledge are the foundations of
America innovation, however, these instruments must not be used to

7
obstruct or exclude research by others.