Journal of Environmental Protection, 2010, 1, 183-200
doi:10.4236/jep.2010.12023 Published Online June 2010 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jep)
1
New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of
Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development
Armen B. Avagyan
Research and Industry Center of Photosynthesizing Organisms, Feed Additives and Physiologically Active Compounds, Yerevan,
Armenia.
Received January 26th, 2010; revised March 16th, 2010; accepted March 17th, 2010.
ABSTRACT
Current trends in energy consumption and biofuel manufacturing are neither secure nor sustainable, because they are
not provided by necessary cost effective technologies. Further reductions of cost and technological development will be
needed for biofuels to be able to compete effectively without subsidy. With the debate raging about raw material of bio-
fuel, microalgae may offer a solution to this conundrum; creating enormous reserves of biofuels and boosting feed
production. In this goal Center suggest projects, which incorporate water recourse management and restoration of
lakes, freshwater conservation and cleanup through cost effective biodiesel manufacturing as well as pharmaceuticals
destruction through the use of microalgae Chlorella and wastewaters aimed to replace the burning technology includes
also supplying biofuel profitably and developed pilot bussiness plan based on the cost effective technology through
applying new innovative approaches in various stages of microalgae production. The benefits of microalgae are so
overwhelming that this, combined with the prospect of the improvement in nature protection, makes it imperative for the
world to devise an international response and a plan of action. Incentives will be needed for the development of indus-
try-led platforms such as the World Microalgae Technology Platform and its international financial fund. Microalgae
must be the key tool for the new design and building sustainable development and environment management.
Keywords: Environmental Management, Microalgae, Algal Bloom, Lake Restoration, Biofuel, Feed Additive, Wastewater
Cleaning, Eco-Innovation
1. Introduction
A global shadow of environmental deterioration mani-
fests the approaching dangers that threaten the existence
of life. Changes in technology drive economic growth in
developing countries and contribute significantly to eco-
nomic well-being in rich countries. While technology has
provided yield increases, this has not proved to be sus-
tainable for a long term. Some technological improve-
ments have reduced production risk, while others have
increased it. Furthermore, the effects of technological
change on production risk have varied taking into ac-
count time, space and production activities. Some of
these effects have been detrimental to individual and
public welfare [1,2]. The patterns of water, nutrients and
energy cycles in the biosphere have been established in
course of millions of years of biological evolution and
thousand of years after the last glace periods. These cy-
cles have been degraded in exponentially accelerating
pattern during the last 100 years, by human activities
mostly due to the lack of environmental consciousness
and mechanistic approach to the management of natural
resources. Greater risks of crop failures and livestock
deaths are already imposing economic losses and under-
mining food security, and they are likely to get far more
severe as global warming continues [1,2]. In some Afri-
can countries yields could decline by as much as 50% by
2020 [3]. Climate change would also lead to increased
water stress, which by 2020 could affect 75-250 million
people in Africa alone. Our ripening into maturity and
survival will depend on our ability to assimilate the ex-
plosive progress of technology towards a new culture—
bioculture—webbed with unifying values and based on
the better understanding and respect of the “rights” of
bios. Bios provide the unifying force for the harmonious
co-existence of all forms of life, leading to a new era of
bio-diplomacy. This should provide the opportunity to see
the future in a new vision, where technology can serve as
a revelation of the truth and where every endeavour is
governed by reflection on and appreciation of the envi-
ronment.
All aspects of infrastructure will be on the rise in 2009,
as the governments around the world try to spend their
way out of a deep recession. Adaptation measures are

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development 184
needed urgently to reduce the adverse impacts of climate
change, as well as to minimize the costs of natural disas-
ters. Technological improvements to energy systems drive
cause efficiency and hence contribute to climate protec-
tion [4]. Cost advantages are the primary drivers for en-
vironmentally friendly investments. Approximately $ 3.5
trillion will need to be invested in energy projects in the
next 20 years [4]. This corresponds to a six-fold increase
from the current level. Planned spending limit on global
infrastructure over the next 20 years, including water,
transport, energy and healthcare, in total is around $ 20
trillion, but the number of options can make the rollout
complex. Acceleration of sustainable development re-
quires the implementation of new innovation measures.
The knowledge-based bio-economy will play an impor-
tant role in our emerging reality. In this case sun microal-
gae production may be the main future resource for de-
velopment of Life Industry (food and feed, etc.) and bio-
fuel production as well as for environment management
and sustainable development. Therefore this review pre-
sent situtional analyses and our enviromnent management
approch in the framework of our concept addressed to
global sustainable development through including micro-
algae and its biomass in Production (such as wastewater
treatment and biofuel) and Bio Cycles (such as food, feed
perfumery production etc.) [5]. It will be a key environ-
mental management answer to unsustainable technologi-
cal developments and Climate Change.
2. Water Recourse Management
2.1 Drinking Water
Water is a fragile resource that is quite different from, say,
ore and oil deposits. It is at once renewable through the
natural cycle, yet if spoiled or over-abstracted, it actually
becomes non-renewable. Water is unpredictable: even in
normally arid regions, floods can cause havoc. Over the
last 50 years, global water withdrawal has quadrupled
while world population doubled [6]. Currently, about 1
bn people around the world routinely drink unhealthy
water. It has been estimated that the number of people
worldwide who do not have the access to safe drinking
water and sanitation will have risen by 2015. The global
water withdrawal will increase by 31% between 1995
and 2020. East Asia, Latin America, Africa and several
other regions use about one-third as much water per per-
son as the average of OECD countries, and almost
one-fifth of what is used in North America. The gravity
of the problem increases in the face of global develop-
ment and large-scale degradation of environment. In-
creasing pollution loads will outstrip the self-purifying
capacity of water systems. If no countermeasures are
taken, anthropogenic assault will gradually lead to a
situation when water is no longer the source of life, hu-
man and ecosystem well-being, but on the contrary, a
source of disease, ecosystem disruption and social disor-
der. Serious decline in water resources has been observed
in many parts of the World as a result of the lack of
knowledge of how to establish sustainable systems of
water management [7,8]. Most residents of the US take
for granted that we will have an endless supply of water.
In order of this view changing the US Department of
Health (DOH) says: “Imagine going to your kitchen sink
to get a glass of water, and when you turn on the tap
nothing is there” [8]. The U.S. Municipal Water Supply
—Efficiency Requirements Act and Safe Drinking Water
Act directs DOH to conservation and restoration of
drinking water supply. The EU Water Framework Direc-
tive requires the “promotion of sustainable water use
based on a long-term protection of available water re-
sources” [9].
2.2 Eutrophication and Algal Bloom
At present times eutrophication is surely the most impor-
tant process affecting lakes and water reservoirs world-
wide. An important consequence of this process is the
general reduction in the possibility of water use and the
increasing importance of lakes and reservoirs, conse-
quently, many resources for socio-economic develop-
ment can be seriously damaged. If aquatic resources are
to be exploited on a sustainable basis in the future, a
concerted effort is needed to resolve the conflicts between
user groups. There is a great need for the restoration of
lakes and other natural water bodies as increased nutrient
loadings have accrued in the sediments and make it dif-
ficult to control the level of fish production. Conservation
and restoration of drinking water reservoirs are as well
required. The increasing occurrence of harmful algal
blooms (HAB) over the last 60 years has been linked to
the process caused by the enrichment of water with nu-
trients from human population growth and associated
activity and these problems know no national borders
[6-13]. A first priority of US HARRNESS plan for the
coming years is to understand and mitigate impacts of
HAB species on pelagic and benthic food webs and their
capacity to support fisheries and ecosystem services as
well as mitigation of bloom impacts of all types using a
suite of practical strategies to protect and utilize threat-
ened resources, as well as to directly intervene in bloom
development (where appropriate) using economical and
environmentally acceptable methods and mitigate im-
pacts of blue-green algae species on pelagic and benthic
food webs and their capacity to support fisheries and
ecosystem services [11,12]. Blue-green algae of bloom
are a group of prokaryotes which history goes back to
2700 million years. Blue-greens are not true algae. They
have no nucleus, the structure that encloses the DNA,
and no chloroplast, the structure that encloses the photo-
synthetic membranes, the structures that are evident in
photosynthetic true algae. While the simple plants con-

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development185
tinue to thrive, especially in the environments in which
they evolved, each new grade of organization has even-
tually become more “successful” in evolution than its
predecessors by most measures. Green algae evolved
from prokaryotes between 2500 and 1000 million years
ago. Now we see the reverse process, compared to the
evolutionary track, that blue-green microalgae become
more "successful" in comparison to green algae in water
reservoirs as а result of environmental contamination.
Management strategies are needed that will prevent
(avoid the occurrence of blooms or reduce their extent),
mitigate (minimize blue green Cyanobacterial blooms
impacts on human health, living resources, and coastal
economies when they do occur), and control (actions that
directly reduce or suppress an existing bloom population)
[10,11,13,14]. It is certain that man’s contact with blue-
green will increase, and there is a probability that their
role in human disease either as toxin sources (neurotox-
ins affect the nervous system, hepatotoxins - liver, and
dermatoxins irritate skin and mucous membranes) or as
cutaneous irritants or sensitizers has been underestimated
and unsuspected, because the algae blooms are not just
disgusting but potentially dangerous [11,12,14-16]. In
1998, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
included freshwater cyanobacteria and their toxins on the
first Candidate Contaminant List (CCL) (Federal Regis-
ter, 1998). The risks humans run by eating fish and other
animals from contaminated waters are difficult to quan-
tify but are potentially significant [11-13,17]. Concerns
about cyanophyte toxins contaminating eggs and car-
casses in intensive poultry farms have led to the exten-
sive use of environmentally undesirable pesticides to
control blooms in farm water supplies. It is unknown to
what extent other algae or cyanophyte toxins may accu-
mulate in agricultural products [14]. There is no such
protection in place for the irrigated agriculture and
aquaculture industries. We do know that many toxins are
extremely persistent in the environment, often being re-
sistant to chemical or bacterial degradation. Preliminary
investigations have shown that some toxins persist for
more than a week on irrigated pasture grass, spray irriga-
tion may lead to direct contact between water and fruit
and it is possible that the toxic cyanophytes will dry on
the grape surface. It is unknown which plants actually
take up the toxins. However, it is known that some toxins
persist in dried form for several months [14]. Currently
preventative measures of control against bloom devel-
opment as well as its toxic forms through preventing of
including fertilizers, animal wastes and other sources of
nutrients in water resource do not achieve sustainable
results and spread of the blue-green infection can reach
catastrophic dimension [12]. The conventional treatment
and disinfection of most public drinking water supplies
are not effective in removing or deactivating cyanophyte
toxins as well as boiling is not effective [14,16]. Treat-
ment techniques have been studied throughout the world
and have proved that chlorination is ineffective. Killing
the cyanophytes with chlorine, heat, mechanical disrupt-
tion or any other process causes them to lyse and release
their endotoxins into the water supply. Water that is free
of cyanophytes cells may not be free of the toxins [14].
Now, the most important problem to solve concerns the
following question: how to restore and adapt the hydro-
logical, biogeochemical and biological cycles to the new
conditions of high population density and activities,
without obstructing development [6,9-11]. The first and
most obvious step toward protection and restoration of a
lake or reservoir is to divert or treat excessive nutrient,
organic, and silt loads [13,14]. These approaches, how-
ever, usually ignore the biological interactions of the lake,
interactions which themselves may be responsible for
low water transparency, high internal nutrient release,
and the frequently observed slow response to nutrient
diversion. The new approach requires an understanding
of the dynamics of water and biogeochemical processes
with special emphasis on the role of biota in the catch-
ment and aquatic systems as being a very vulnerable but
easily manageable component of the freshwater ecosys-
tem. Water quality, expressed as secondary pollution and
toxic HAB, continues to decline in aquatic ecosystems
across the World. Therefore it is possible that problems
of algal bloom mitigation can be done not only by re-
ducing human impacts but also by regulating the aquatic
biota through biomanipulation. The biomanipulation in-
volves the deliberate alteration of an ecosystem by add-
ing or removing species. Nevertheless, biomanipulation
can be used as additional or exclusive measure to im-
prove the quality of stagnant waters [18,19]. Food webs
are controlled by resource limitation (“bottom-up”) and
by predation (“top-down”). In the last years, many ex-
periments have been carried on applying gradually of
biomanipulation techniques, following a step-by-step
procedure aimed to produce a less stressing effect and to
have the possibility to modify at any moment the inten-
sity and the direction of the intervention. However, many
problems of considerable importance still await a satis-
factory solution. It is clear that techniques of integrated
biomanipulation show good prospects for managing eu-
trophic aquatic environments with a view to the ultimate
recovery of their quality. The literature on food web ma-
nipulation indicates that important factor is the manipu-
lated fish population stability (influences of anthropo-
genic factor or natural event like fish mortality, etc.). In
case of significant change follows fish quantity the new
structure might be stable for a short time [14]. Complete
removal of the planktivorous fish will not per se lead to
optimal conditions for daphnids and stabilize. On the
other hand, if the biomass of planktivorous fish exceeds a
certain critical level the larger crustacean herbivores will
not be able to dominate. Neither phytoplankton densities

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development 186
nor biomass quantities can be regulated [20]. The studies
dealing with top-down control in the food web have not
provided any tailor-made solutions for a reduction of
algal bloom biomass and sustainable improvement in
light climate. However, the daily feed supply for aqua-
culture raises nutrient levels, but does not simply in-
crease normal predator–prey activity; rather, HAB events
develop often with serious ecological and aesthetic im-
plications [20]. Some typical problems of water quality
management through biomanipulation became obvious
(blue-green algae, long term stability) [18-20]. Many
lakes have extensive littoral areas, and the production of
organic matter by these zones is very significant in the
cycling of nutrients and in the nutrition of lake organisms.
In particular, the large annual production of rooted plants
and attached algae may be a major source of decom-
posing organic matter, and thus nutrients, to the open
water and to the sediments of the hypolimnion [13]. Not
only are the sediments of the littoral zone the source of
nutrients for these rooted plants, the plants may release
nutrients to the water column via aerobic decomposition.
Even this expensive process, while necessary, may be
insufficient to produce immediate and long-lasting ef-
fects, due to internal recycling of nutrients and the asso-
ciated production of algae and macrophytes [13]. The
basic assumptions of the biomanipulation concept were
found to be generally valid, although quantitatively hard
to predict. So studies dealing with biomanipulation tool
show that to achieve good prospects and sustainable im-
provement it is needed provided any tailor-made solu-
tions for a regulation of algal biomass in water resources
[15,18,20]. Therefore new innovation tool for algal bio-
mass quantity regulation is necessary.
2.3 Offered Tool for Management in Order to
Restore and Conserve Water Recourse
Our demonstration project of water recourse management
includes both supplying energy profitably and restoration
of lakes as well as freshwater conservation and cleanup
through cost effective biodiesel manufacturing. This
technology demonstration and commercialization may be
key water quality management effective tool in cost
effective manner, because it may be used also for the
further biological engineering of the lake system in order
to restore biological mechanism that stabilizes the aquatic
plant-dominant system, freshwater conservation, cleanup
and restoration through reducing negative effect of algal
blooms, lake internal surplus nutrient and heavy metals. It
will create a more secure environment for power investors
and users as well as offered manipulation tools applica-
tion in biotic dynamics of freshwater ecosystems are
synchronous with today’s and future world request.
Commercialization of the results of our project has the
ability of self-start. Consequently, our technological deve-
lopment of the microalgae biomass use for biodiesel
industry has wide prospects and may provide sustainable
economic development and meeting calls of Kyoto
Objectives, Environmental Conservation and Lakes and
Biodiversity Restoration, FAO, US HAPPINES, World
Energy Outlook, World Development Report, 2008; U.S.
Presidents Calls, U.S. Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. (1976)), US
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 42 U.S.C. §300f et seq.
(1974)), US Energy Security and Independence Act of
2007 (ESIA), US Department of Energy (DOE) and the
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Biomass Research
and Development Initiative (BRDI), Roadmap for Bioenergy
and Biobased Products in the US (third generation of
biofuel) , EU New Energy Policy, EU Renewable Energy
Road Map, EU Strategy for Biofuels, European Biofuels
Technology Platform, etc. Thus, this technology will
promote ecologically friendly solution to restoration and
cleanup of lakes and other water reservoirs, conservation
of drink water supply, and increasing quantity of valuable
biomass for biodiesel manufacturing. On the other hand,
EU Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/EC), seeks
to achieve the prevention and remedying of environ-
mental damage, which presents a threat to human health,
bringing with it a number of new or increased risks to
companies and their director [21]. The Directive has
already been implemented in Italy (2006), Spain (2007),
France (2008) and England (2009). Therefore this Di-
rective raises the possibility of our technology com-
mercialization in Europe, as it grants a possibility for
remedying environmental damage with obtaining profit
and decreasing the risk of industries.
3. Environmental Pollution, Climate Change
and Biofuel
3.1 Climate Change and Biofuel
The Kyoto Protocol provides a mechanism for the crea-
tion of GHG credits and debits based on limits negotiated
for each Annex 1 signatory country to the Kyoto Protocol.
Kyoto Protocol came into force on 2005. The World is
facing Global Climate Change and twin energy-related
threats: that of not having adequate and secure supplies
of energy at affordable prices and that of environmental
harm caused by consuming too much of it [22,23]. Po-
tential interference with the climate system means that
proper attention should be paid to the expected evolution
of GHG emissions. Global primary energy demand is
estimated to increase by just over one-half between now
and 2030—an average annual rate of 1.6% [22]. Oil de-
mand case will have risen by 29 mb/d by 2030, when it
will reach 113 mb/d. In the medium-term, by 2012, an
average increase of 1.3 mb/d annually is expected, while
this yearly increase gradually falls in the longer term to
1.2 mb/d p.a [22]. On the other hand global en-

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development187
ergy-related CO2 emissions will have increased by 55%
by 2030, or by 1.7% per year. These gases cover a wide
range of activities, and include, for example, land-use
change and farming. It is important to recall, however,
that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel used in 2004 ac-
counted for only 57% of global GHG emissions. Over
70% of the increase in demand is observed in developing
countries, with China alone constituting 30%. Develop-
ing countries consumption will have almost doubled and
reached 56 mb/d by 2030. Current trends in energy con-
sumption are neither secure nor sustainable economically,
environmentally or socially [22,23]. Inexorably rising
consumption of fossil fuels and related greenhouse-gas
emissions threaten our energy security and risk changing
the global climate irreversibly and the US and EU has
accelerated the development of renewable energy and
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions [22-28].
Biofuel is biodegradable and can reduce vehicle emis-
sions of particulates, carbon monoxide, and hydrocar-
bons [22]. The benefits of biodiesel include higher lubri-
cation, longer-lasting engines, clean burning as compared
to diesel, less reliance on foreign oil, low toxicity, biode-
gradability, pleasant odour and efficiency as compared to
diesel. Compared with using petroleum diesel, the use of
biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine substantially
reduces emissions of unburned hydrocarbons (HC), car-
bon monoxide (CO), sulphates, polycyclic aromatic hy-
drocarbons, nitrated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
and particulate matter (PM). Some PM and HC emissions
from diesel fuel combustion are toxic or are suspected of
causing cancer and other life threatening illnesses. Using
only biodiesel (B100) can eliminate as much as up to
90% of these “air toxics.” B100 provides the best emis-
sion reductions, but lower-level blends also provide bene-
fits. B20 has been shown to reduce PM emissions of 10%,
CO 11%, and unburned HC 21%. Using biodiesel reduces
greenhouse gas emissions because CO2 released from bio-
diesel combustion is offset by the carbon dioxide seques-
tered while growing the soybeans or other feed stock.
The net impact on greenhouse-gas emissions of re-
placing conventional fuels with biofuels depends on sev-
eral factors. These include the type of crop, the amount
and type of energy embedded in the fertilizer used to
grow the crop and in the water used, emissions from fer-
tilizer production, the resulting crop yield, the energy
used in gathering and transporting the feedstock to the
biorefinery, alternative land uses, and the energy intensity
of the conversion process. Calculating the energy and
emissions balance of biofuel production requires esti-
mates of, or assumptions about, all these variables, as well
as the energy or emissions credit that should be attributed
to the various by-products. CO2 emissions at the point of
use are assumed to be zero on the grounds that the bio-
mass feedstock is a renewable resource (the carbon emit-
ted is exactly equal to the carbon absorbed by the bio-
mass). In practice, the amount and type of primary energy
consumed in producing biofuels and, therefore, the related
emissions of greenhouse gases, vary enormously. A
study compares several reports on corn-based ethanol
production in the US, in order to compile estimates of
primary fossil-energy input/output ratios and net
greenhouse-gas emissions using consistent parameters.
It concludes that the “best point estimate” is that the
primary energy input (excluding the biomass feedstock)
is equal to about 80% of the energy contained in the
ethanol output. On this basis, greenhouse-gas emissions
are only 13% lower per kilometer compared with pe-
troleum-based fuels [23].
Estimates for the net reduction in greenhouse-gas
emissions that are obtained from rapeseed-derived bio-
diesel in Europe also range from about 40% to 60%,
compared with conventional automotive diesel. The EC
shows that conventional ethanol production can result in
a net saving of up to 23% of the fossil energy required
for gasoline and a saving of over 30% in greenhouse-gas
emissions. In 2005, biofuels were used in 17 of the 21
Member States of the EU [25]. The EU emitted 5 143 Mt
of CO2-equivalent in 2006, 7.7% less compared to 1990
levels [24-26]. CO2 intensity, measured as kgCO2 per ton
of oil equivalent, has been slowly but steadily declining
and in 2006 fell to 2498 kgCO2/toe. Following a period
of industrial restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe
at the beginning of the 1990s, GHG emissions picked up
again after 2000. Carbon-free and indigenous energy
sources (renewables and nuclear) in the EU’s fuel mix
would amount to 28%-30% under the New Energy Pol-
icy compared with only 21-25% under current trends and
policies. EU energy industries generated the highest
amount of CO2 emissions (37%) in 2006, followed by
transport (23%), manufacturing industries and construc-
tion (15%), and the residential sector (11%). EU green-
house gas emissions from transport have risen considera-
bly since 1990 and are projected to continue increasing
[26]. Between 1990 and 2006 CO2 emissions from trans-
port increased by 26%. In formulating the future EU en-
ergy policy it is necessary to conduct through analysis of
possible developments in terms of the EU’s energy de-
mand by two main scenarios. In EU New Energy Policy
demand in 2020 is projected according to current trends
and policies (baseline) and in the case of taking action to
achieve agreed EU targets on Climate Change mitigation,
namely a reduction of 20% in greenhouse gas emissions
compared to 1990, along with a 20% share for renew-
ables in the final energy demand by 2020, and to bring
about a substantial improvement in energy efficiency. In
the light of these scenarios, overall developments are
described and their impacts on EU energy security and
on 2020 objectives are assessed. Under baseline condi-
tions the primary energy needs in 2020 continue to grow,
compared to the current situation, although at a lower

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development 188
rate than in the past. Given current trends, the EU’s con-
sumption rises between 5% and 9% depending on the oil
price, with the higher increase in the case of moderate oil
prices. Gross inland consumption would therefore reach
in 2020 a level of between 1,900 and 1,970 Mtoe. Fuel
needed for the transport sector remains the main driver.
Transport is responsible for more than 50% of the addi-
tional CO2 emissions till 2020. Transport is the only sec-
tor that showed an upward trend during this period and
its consumption rises by 17%-21% by 2020, with the
lower limit reflecting developments under high oil prices.
The share of renewables would increase under all sce-
narios and price circumstances. However, this increase
would be partly nullified by a falling nuclear share as a
result of nuclear phase-out decisions and closure of nu-
clear plants considered unsafe in some Member States as
well as sluggish replacement of existing nuclear plants at
the end of their lifetime with plants of the same type.
Given current policies and trends, irrespective of the
level of energy prices, the 20% target will not be met in
2020. With moderate oil prices, energy-related CO2
emissions are set to rise by 5% between 1990 and 2020
—back on an ascending path, after earlier reductions due
to restructuring in the EU12. GHG emissions would de-
cline by 1.5% between 1990 and 2020, due to the reduc-
tion in non-CO2 GHG emissions. Transport accounts for
a steadily increasing share of energy-related CO2 emis-
sions under current policies and moderate fuel import
prices, reaching 29% in 2020 compared to 27% in 2005
and 20% in 1990. The CO2 price required to achieve the
20% reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions would be
€ 41 per ton of CO2 in 2020, which is lower than would
be the case if no renewables policies were put in place.
With high oil prices and a CO2 price equal to € 41 per ton
of CO2, energy-related CO2 emissions could be almost
23% below their 1990 level. This price is consistent with
the one that would emerge from the “cost efficient sce-
nario” analyzed in the Impact Assessment for the January
2008 climate and energy package, which does not in-
clude JI/CDM credits (JI and CDM contribute to global
sustainable development through early mitigation action
in third countries, in particular in developing countries
[29]). It is however important to bear in mind that the
main scenario considered in the January 2008 EC pro-
posal, a policy case which achieves the CO2 and renew-
ables objectives while allowing trade in JI/CDM credits,
would result in a lower carbon price of about € 30 per ton
CO2 while achieving less energy intensity improvements
and CO2 reduction. Implementing the energy and climate
policy proposals would improve the environment and
diversity of the fuel mix while fostering EU competi-
tiveness through industrial leadership on efficient low
carbon technologies.
At present first-generation biofuel technologies, based
on grain, sugar and oil crops, will continue to supply the
vast bulk of biofuels. The most crucial subject in the de-
bate over the sustainability of biofuels, however, is the
impact on the food supply of large-scale use and trade of
biomass for energy purposes in case of this generation of
biofuels [22,23]. Because biofuels such as biodiesel and
bioethanol are made from biomass crops that can also be
used for food production, both these markets affect each
other. The debate has intensified, particularly, over the
impact of biofuels on food prices and their positive effect
on the environment. Moreover, the capacity of grain-
based first-generation biofuels to replace fossil fuels,
particularly for transport, is believed to be extremely
limited [22,23,30]. The demand for grain will increase
further as the world’s population grows (9 billion in 2050,
compared with 6.5 billion in 2006) and grain consump-
tion in developing countries is expected to have doubled
by 2050 from an annual average of 1.1 billion tons be-
tween 1999 and 2001 [1]. According to International
Monetary Fund rising food and feed demand, which
competes with that of biofuels for existing arable and
pasture land, will constrain the potential for biofuels
production by using current technology [23]. The situa-
tion in Japan is a case in point [30]. Japan may face ris-
ing food prices and difficulties in securing sufficient
amounts of foods, the white paper warned. Seasoning
maker Ajinomoto Co said that its fiscal 2006 earnings
were weighed down by a spike in sugar cane prices, re-
flecting the growing popularity of bioethanol as an alter-
native fuel. Japan should raise its food self-sufficiency
rate as the global balance of food supply and demand is
expected to get tighter in line with increases in produc-
tion of biofuels, announced in a Japanese government
white paper on agriculture [30]. In the US, more plants
have been built for the production of bioethanol leading
also to higher prices for food and animal feed [31]. By
the use of current technologies demand for corn for bio-
fuel production is expected to have risen to 31% of the
overall US demand for corn in 10 years, from 18% in
2006, making the amount for export inevitably lower.
The International Monetary Fund estimated that higher
ethanol production in the US accounted for 60% of the
global increase in corn consumption in 2007, and that the
use of soybean and rapeseed oil in producing biofuels in
the EU and US has accounted for the bulk of demand
growth for these crops in recent years [22]. This applies
especially to densely populated areas where food produc-
tion has priority over bioenergy production. As an exam-
ple the US, EU and India have very regulated and pro-
tected food markets. There is also no point in developing
a first-generation biofuel program if the country has to
import expensive chemical fertilizer to increase feed-
stock production. Very high feedstock prices could also
prompt changes in policies regarding subsidies. A further
vulnerability is the unpredictability of the weather and its
impact on feedstock prices. While a combination of fac-

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development189
tors, including growing demand from emerging countries,
lower supply due to unfavourable weather conditions,
export bans and market speculation, contribute to food
prices rises strong demand for biofuels is also an impor-
tant reason. Besides the biofuels market, the food market
is also a “political” market as it is highly regulated. Thus
actual amount of biofuels crop production depends on
several actors, political, as well as decisions made at the
farming level. Until recently, most biofuels programs
were conceived as part of farm-support policies, but a
growing number of governments are now planning to
expand or introduce such programs for genuine energy-
security, economic and environmental reasons.
The use of agriculture plants for manufacturing of
first-generation biofuels could lead also to competition
for water resources, both in terms of physical availability
and access to water [22,23]. With these biofuels requir-
ing large amounts of water, and with 2050 projections
suggesting that irrigation withdrawals may have to in-
crease another 20% to meet future global food demand,
water for biofuels will add pressure to water resources
that are already strained or will soon be in many places.
The water resource impacts could be large for a number
of countries and this is also expected to feed back into
global grain markets. A study by the International Water
Management Institute concluded that it is unlikely that
fast-growing economies such as China and India will be
able to meet future food, feed and biofuel demand with-
out substantially aggravating already existing water scar-
city problems.
Ultimately, the competition between food and biofuels
crop production depends also on land availability [22,
23]. At present about 14 million hectares of land are now
used for the production of biofuels, equal to about 1% of
the world’s currently available arable land. The amount
of arable land needed in 2030 is equal to more than that
of France and Spain and that of all the OECD Pacific
countries including Australia. Thus land availability and
food needs will also limit the growth in conventional
biofuels production based on sugar, cereals and seed
crops. With pressures on land-use for energy as opposed
to food production being increasingly felt around the
globe, the growth of biofuels supply—from first-
generation technologies—is expected to slow sharply in
the longer term [23]. Furthermore, until very recently,
estimates of GHG emission reductions from biofuels
assumed that biofuels are derived from crops grown on
lands already in production. Nearly all past life-cycle
analyses of the GHG impacts of substituting first-genera-
tion biofuels for fossil fuels have ignored emissions re-
sulting from land use change [23]. When land is devoted
to biofuels production the carbon stored in trees and
bushes will be directly lost, as will a significant portion
of the CO2 stored in the soil. These effects can also occur
indirectly. For example, the use of a particular crop to
produce biofuels in one country may lead to the conver-
sion of grasslands or forest elsewhere to replace that crop.
Only lately have attempts been made to quantify emis-
sions from worldwide land use change. A ground-
breaking study 18 assessed GHG emissions due to ex-
panding US corn-based ethanol production in 2016 from
1–2 mb/d. The study found that, instead of producing a
20% reduction in GHGs compared to gasoline, factoring
in land change emissions and amortizing them over 30
years roughly doubles GHG emissions [23]. Over time,
using corn ethanol would produce GHG benefits, but it
would take 167 years to recoup the extra emissions. In
other words, corn ethanol production would cause net
positive GHG emissions until it had been used for 167
years. Biofuels from switch grass, if grown on the US
corn lands, increase emissions by 50% [23]. Large-scale
mono-cropping could have severe negative impacts on
biodiversity, soil erosion and nutrient leaching as well as
on biodiversity. According to the UN report, even varied
and more-sustainable crops grown for energy purposes
could have negative environmental impacts if they re-
place wild forests or grasslands. The United Nations of
2007 report considers 19 problems associated with first-
generation biofuels among those included in list that will
remain the most vexing and deserve the most attention.
3.2 Enviroment Management and Sustainable
Development through including Microalgae
and their Biomass in Production and Bio
Cycles
Microalgae contain, among other elements, high quanti-
ties of natural proteins, enzymes, amino acids, pigments,
30% lipids, over 40% glycerol, up to 8-10% carotene and
a fairly high concentration of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6, B12,
E, K, D etc, compared with other plants or animals
[32,33]. In fact, the former USSR was the first to become
a large scale manufacturing of microalgae, in the frame-
work of producing high quality feed additives [33]. In
1980 more than 500 Chlorella manufacturings were in
farms of Uzbekistan (mainly for sheep) as well as
addiitional quantity in other Soviet republics. However,
the disintegration of the USSR has caused interruption of
all these manufacturing.
Today’s fruits and vegetables contain small amounts
of key nutrients, including proteins (6%), calcium, phos-
phorus, iron, vitamin B2 (38%) and vitamin C [34] . Al-
though there is probably more than one explanation, the
trend may be largely through farmers choosing to gener-
ate a high crop yield. As a result, the need of people and
animals to use high quality food and feed additives to
compensate for a lack of physiologically active compo-
nents which they cannot get from ordinary food and feed
has increased. During last years, the primary goal was to
increase the feed assimilability, but it was achievable
principally by using small concentrations of powdered

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development 190
activated carbon and adding enzymes, raising only the
degree of cellulose hydrolysis, assimilability and the
commodity weight of production per feed unit. This
one-sided approach has resulted in product quality im-
pairment and a decrease in animal resistance to illnesses.
On the other hand, an acute increment of frequency of
mass epidemics among animals and poultries in various
countries was evidenced. This has caused great economic
damage to manufacturers and whole countries. The
manufacture of vaccines against mass epidemics requires
enormous feats of organization and is not always effec-
tive. So, at the end of 2006 a new strain of H5N1 avian
flu virus (Fujian-like) was detected in China which was
resistant to earlier produced vaccines [33]. Another
problem faced today is the consequences caused by the
over-use of antibiotics in animal feed. While antibiotics
were proven to be effective in improving poultry produc-
tion, their use came under pressure as an increasing
number of consumers feared that their inclusion in ani-
mal feed rations would lead to antibiotic resistant bacte-
ria that are pathogenic to humans. In 2005, the EU re-
moved the last antibiotic growth promoters from pig and
poultry diets. As consensus begins to develop among the
scientific community on this subject, a few approaches
stand out in terms of efficacy, technological and eco-
nomical feasibility, particularly in terms of organic acids
and the use of essential or botanical oils. Organic acids
provide a natural alternative, reducing production of
toxic components by bacteria and causing a change in the
morphology of the intestinal wall that reduces coloniza-
tion of pathogens, thus preventing damage to the epithe-
lial cells [35]. Anions of organic acids deactivate the
RNA transferase enzyme, which damage the nucleic acid
multiplication process and eventually result in death of
the organisms. But the use of organic acids and essential
oils in the feed industry are potentially a source of other
problems: corrosion, worker safety, handling, vitamin
stability in pre-mixes, environmental concerns, and the
stability of products [35]. With all this in mind, the use of
microalgae Chlorella as a feed additive could become the
best solution, since microalgae contain natural organic
acids that reduce colonization of pathogens [33]. Thanks
to this feature, microalgae Chlorella is used also for feed
conservation and reduction of microbiological pollution
of wastewaters. Hence, the success of our approach
through use of microalgae and its processing products in
biofuel manufacturing as feed additives may help reduce
not only the general deficiency, but the poor quality and
inferiority of the majority of feed additives as well,
which may be one of the major causes of the alarming
frequency increases of mass epidemics facing animals,
poultry, etc. [33].
Second-generation microalgae manufacturing volume
sharply increased due to significant influence of food
additives, high-quality perfumery related industry
development (US, Japan, etc.). So, currently over 75 %
of pharmaceutical product development is generated by
the food additives production comprising also microalgae.
About 61% of Americans (spending $ 6 billion yearly)
and 43% of Europeans use food additives. The market
survey shows that initially these microalgae manufac-
turing has reached super high growth rate, sales volume
of several companies’ has increased doubly, but in
condition of the world microalgae manufacturing volume
increase the prices of microalgae product was decreasing
as well as excess profits gained in companies of deve-
loped countries at start up (US Cyanotech. Corp.
revenues in million dollars: 1994 - 2.7; 1995 - 4.2; 1996 -
8.1; 1997 - 11.4; 2003 - 9, 2004 - 11.6; 2005 - 11.4; 2008
- 13.9). According to our reseach now Chinese producers
have least costs of microalgae manufacturing. At 2004
after start up of bird flu epidemic desicion makers of
Chinese and Vietnamese policy felt that feed industry
participants should seize the opportunity to grow with the
development of livestock and aquacultural production
industries. Nowadays Chinese carries out big investments
in development of microalgae manufacturing. Taiwan
green energy industry set to boom after new law enacted
aimed at promoting renewable energy development [36].
The Taiwan Renewable Energy Development Act pro-
vides a legal framework that will encourage investment
in renewable energy production and offer incentives to
local consumers to install renewable energy equipment.
Third-generation microalgae manufacturing volume
increase may be caused by biofuel and high quality feed
additives productions (microalgae and biofuel manufac-
turing processing biomass) [5,32,37]. Our vision infers
suggests that algae have emerged as one of the most
promising sources especially for biodiesel. Yields of oil
from algae are orders of magnitude higher than those
from traditional oilseeds [38,39]. In addition, algae can
be grown away in farmlands and forests, thus minimizing
the damage caused to the ecosystem and the conventional
food chain. Furthermore, algae have properties that make
commercial production attractive, such as faster growth
compared with land-grown plants; small water consump-
tion, uniform cell structure with no bark, stems, branches
or leaves, allowing easier extraction of products and
higher utilization of microalgae cells; cellular uniformity
making practical the manipulation and control of grow-
ing conditions for the optimization of cell properties.
Biofuel production will be a new rapidly growing global
market for algae products as well as the manufacturing of
microalgal biomass may be beneficial to countries not
capable of growing conventional crops around the world
[32]. Additionally algae can adsorb up to 450 tons of
CO2 per acre when grown commercially [40]. They are
also harvested very quickly; dramatically speeding up
production process with small water consumption [32].
To produce the required amount of biodiesel by growing

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development 191
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, would be re-
quired. Conversely, only approximately 9.5 m acres
would be required to produce 15,000 gallons of oil per
acre from algae. There is other interesting reason as well:
algae can be grown in sewage with its cleaning and next
to power-plant smokestacks where they digest the pol-
lutants to produce oil [32,37].
From 1978 to 1996, the U.S. DOE funded a program
to develop renewable biodiesel from algae, known as the
Aquatic Species Program (ASP, above $ 300 million) [39,
41]. The main focus of this program was the production
of biodiesel from high lipid-content algae. A major con-
clusion from these analyses is that, for microalgae pro-
duction, there is little prospect for any alternatives to the
open pool designs, given the low cost requirements asso-
ciated with fuel production. The factors that most influ-
ence cost are biological- and not engineering-related.
These analyses point to the need for highly productive
organisms capable of near-theoretical levels of conver-
sion of sunlight to biomass. Two hundred thousand hec-
tares (less than 0.1% of climatically suitable land areas in
the US) could produce one quad (1.055  1018 J) of fuel.
The DOE-ASP program concluded that the only plausi-
ble near- to mid-term application of microalgae biofuels
production requires its integration with wastewater
treatment. This would fulfil the main task of ASP and
permit the cost-effective technology for microalgae pro-
duction to be applied around the globe, thus assisting in
the resolution of some of the global challenges that face
the world community. At 2006-2007 the US researchers
and public is abuzz with talk of replacing imported oil
with “biofuels” produced from microalgae and as look
back at the DOE ASP program [42]. Why would NREL
terminate the project if the prospects really were good?
During the АSP project appraisal valuable and interesting
results of researches have been achieved. However, both
the technical and economic conclusions were more
poorly given reason, though they coincide with our
viewpoints concerning the strategic directions for devel-
opment of microalgae manufacturing. It is necessary to
consider the objective distinctions in an economic situa-
tion with fuel today and earlier. In 1998, a barrel of
petroleum sold for $ 13 [41]; today the price can exceed
$ 70-80 per barrel. In 1982, it was estimated by Bene-
mann that the cost of production for a barrel of algal bio-
diesel was, on average of $ 94 (the hypothetical base was
$ 61 and hypothetical high was $ 127, depending on the
mode of production). According to Michael Briggs: “The
operating costs, including power consumption, labour,
chemicals, and fixed capital costs (taxes, maintenance,
insurance, depreciation, and return on investment)
worked out to $ 12,000 per hectare [41]. That would
equate to $ 46.2 billion per year for all the algae farms, to
yield all the oil feedstock necessary for the entire country.
Compare that to the $ 100-$ 150 billion the US spends
each year just on purchasing crude oil from foreign
countries, with all of that money leaving the US econ-
omy.” If the production of algal biodiesel has not already
been widespread at an industrial scale, it’s simply on
account of concerns about profitability and competition
and it is necessary, obvious, demonstration large projects.
Our research obtained that after terminate ASP program
DOE and FP7 R&D calls attention to microalgae tech-
nologies was insufficient. However now many private
companies are reviewing their energy policies and strate-
gies to comply by today urgent legislative and economic
request and diversification of its business (Table 1).
Table 1. Projects designed to use algae for the production of biofuel
Company/Institute Project details
Chevron and National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) [43]
Agreement to investigate the production of liquid transportation fuels from algae.
Algae BioFuels (subsidiary of PetroSunDrilling) [44] Algae cultivation as an energy source for biodiesel in Arizona and Australia.
Royal Dutch Shell and HR BioPetroleum [45] Venture attempt to build a pilot facility to grow marine algae and produce vegetable
oil for conversion into biofuels.
Aquaflow Bionomin Co [46] Mines biodiesel from sewage algae on a lab- and pilot plant-based scale.
AlgoDyne Ethanol Energy [47] Harvests biomass from marine algal blooms to produce carbon-neutral ethanol,
methanol, biodiesel, electricity, coal and animal feed.
Maes Anturio Ltd [48] Development of an algae filtration system (“Greenbox”) that converts CO2 emis-
sions into biodiesel.
Solix Biofuels and Colorado State University [49] Mass production of cheap algae-derived oil for biodiesel. The alga is grown on
unused land next to power and ethanol plants.
ExxonMobil and Synthetic Genomics Inc. [SGI] [50] Focus is on development of advanced biofuels from photosynthetic algae and ex-
pects to spend more than $ 600 million.
Chinese company ENN [51] ENN has launched its pilot scale algal fuels project, gasifying coal underground for
CO2 capture and using the gas as feedstock for algal production and the company
would commence construction of a demonstration-scale plant by late 2010, and will
scale to commercial capacities commencing in 2013.

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development 192
Our market survey shows also that today prices of mi-
croalgae products are very high, which can be a result of
insufficient investments in the development of innova-
tion technologies. In the last decades our Center strategy
believes also that the cost saving of raw material with the
use of wastewaters through their biological cleaning will
help raise the availability of microalgae biomass for
biofuel, food, agriculture, medicinal and producers, thus
leading to resolution of global tasks facing the world
community. The Center carried out researchers for deve-
lopment technologies of microalgae cultivation in some
wastewaters of industrial plants [32,37]. As a result the
Center developed, in parallel ASP research, a cost effec-
tive technology applying new innovative approaches in
various stages of microalgae production and this tech-
nology for microalgae production may be applied all
around the world. Simultaneously the high norms of
wastewater purification from organic and mineral com-
pounds were achieved and in parallel to this it was
accompanied by sharp reduction of the bacteria contents
in strongly microbiological infected wastewater. Presently,
our business plan is in the stage of commercialization,
both seeking for partners and looking at large-scale
production of microalgae in open cement pools to increase
the production volume excessively. Our business plan
implementation will lead to substantial reduction of fi-
nancial risks to investor contributions in future microalgae
production activity. This is the way, when a cost-effective
technology for microalgae production may be used
throughout, and microalgae will find their productive
application in global markets. Our strategy will allow
producing microalgae through the use and purification of
wastewaters which may be an additional source of profit,
without applying any changes in tax law and subsidizing
of biofuel manufacturing and nature protection actions.
Consequently, our technological approach development
may provide sustainable economic development and
meeting Kyoto Objectives, FAO, Energy Outlook, World
Development Report, 2008; US Presidents Calls, US
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42
U.S.C. §6901 et seq. (1976)), World Energy Outlook, US
Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007 (ESIA) ,
DOE and USDA Biomass Research and Development
Initiative, Roadmap for Bioenergy and Biobased Products
in the US (third generation of biofuel), EU New Energy
Policy, EU Renewable Energy Road Map, EU Strategy
for Biofuels, European Biofuels Technology Platform, etc.
Why wastewaters? It is known that the biological
method is considered the most effective and economically
efficient method for the purification of industrial
wastewater by using the microbiological active slime or
alga [32,37]. However, bacteria of the active slime have
low stability to high concentration of organic and mineral
components, thus considering big water flow volumes.
This method also requires further destruction of super-
fluous quantity of active slime, which contains also patho-
genic microorganisms. Microalgae have higher stability,
which enables working in more concentrated and toxic
environments. Chlorella actively utilizes mineral elements,
spirits, sugar, and amino acids and as compared with
active slime enables higher purification rate (up to 96-
98% for organic and 80% for mineral components,
accordingly). Chlorella has also organic acids, which
prevent the growth of pathogenic microorganisms in
wasterwater and feed. While using microalgae, high norms
of cleaning were shown for some plants and agriculture
wastes. Therefore the use of microalgae for waste and
wastewater cleaning open new ways for their cost effective
production, environment friendly manufacturing and na-
ture conservation. As an example of this approach, our
Center suggests also other demonstration project of drug
destruction through the use of microalgae Chlorella and
wastewaters aimed to replace the burning technology in
order to mitigate Climate Change, environmental pollu-
tion and fuel conservation. Why it is necessary? Cur-
rently destruction of pharmaceuticals are ideally disposed
by their burning at temperature above 1,200°C in the
special furnaces equipped with filters and in order to
prevent the pollution of atmosphere by toxic products of
combustion (dioxins and chlorinated dibenzofurans) with
CO2 emission. The products of combustion also contain-
ing in the stack effluence include HCl, CO, CO2, NOx
etc., causing the pollution of atmosphere by toxic gases,
which appear during the start up and burning processes
and can’t be completely prevented even if the latest
technologies of filtration are used. However such incin-
eration facilities, equipped with adequate emission con-
trol, are mainly to be found in the industrialized world
and this specialized equipment is not available in many
countries [52]. During conflicts and natural disasters
large quantities of pharmaceuticals are often donated as
part of humanitarian assistance and saved as waste [52].
The U.S. Pharmaceuticals Enforcement Administration
had given $ 50,000 to Cambodia through the UN for the
destruction of 4 tons of pharmaceuticals-making materi-
als found [53]. Quotations for disposing of the pharma-
ceutical waste in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in
this way range from $ 2.2/kg to $ 4.1/kg [52]. To inciner-
ate the current stockpile of waste pharmaceuticals in Croa-
tia would therefore cost between $ 4.4 and 8.2 million.
Only the U.S. HRA charges an annual fee of $ 1,000 for
all active studies which covers Auditor/Monitor visits
and annual IDS pharmaceuticals storage fees [54]. Fur-
thermore, the U.S. EPA is committed to taking action
and working with partners to ensure clean and safe water.
The Agency is concerned about the detection of pharma-
ceuticals and personal care products in U.S. water [55].
At 2008 Judith Enck, Deputy Secretary for the Environ-
ment, Office of Governor described pharmaceutical

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development193
waste as an important issue that is a threat to our envi-
ronment [56]. She believes that there is sufficient evi-
dence to support an immediate end to flushing of unused
pharmaceuticals, and charged the group with developing
an action plan to address pharmaceuticals in water. The
results of the Albany Medical Center Pilot Project pro-
gram indicate that more than 90 percent of unused phar-
maceuticals are unregulated, but those include some of
the medications of greatest concern in the U.S. water
—antibiotics, antipsychotics, endocrine disruptors, mood
elevators, etc [56]. Approximately 5% of unused phar-
maceuticals are controlled substances and 4.4 percent are
considered hazardous under RCRA [56]. Therefore the
U.S. asked to advice on strategy to develop pharmaceu-
tical take-back program [57]. As a predictable result of
the accepted measures by the government of the U.S. (in
further may be also other countries), it is possible to ex-
pect sharp increase of the pharmaceutical quantity, which
is liable to destruction. Hereupon actual task is the de-
velopment of new cost-beneficial and ecologically safe
methods of pharmaceutical destruction. Our developed
project provides basic research strategies for destruction
of toxic chemicals, decrease of the pharmaceuticals de-
struction cost and accordingly sales price, mitigation,
environmental contamination as well as CO2 emitting,
fuel conservation and will allow, in parallel, produce
microalgae by the use of wastewater, which obtained
biomass may be an additional source of profit through
the use for biofuel, feed additives, etc. manufacturing.
Consequently, our technological development may pro-
vide sustainable economic development and meeting
Kyoto Objectives, FAO, U.S. President Calls, U.S. Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42
U.S.C. §6901 et seq. (1976)), U.S. EPA calls, U.S. En-
ergy Security and Independence Act of 2007 (ESIA), U.S.
USDA Biomass Research and Development Initiative,
Roadmap for Bioenergy and Biobased Products in the
U.S. (third generation of biofuel), EU New Energy Pol-
icy, EU Renewable Energy Road Map, EU Strategy for
Biofuels, European Biofuels Technology Platform, etc.
4. Where is the General Tool Addressed to
Global Environmental Management and
Sustainable Development?
The data shows that today basic cause of the environ-
mental pollution and Climatic Changes is the conse-
quences of the activity of the developed countries, and
their outcome effect on all regions around the world. The
U.S. and China’s combined account is almost half of the
planet’s carbon emissions [58]. The U.S. government
policy highlights the need for the biomass industry to
develop new feedstocks that will be easier to grow, pro-
duce higher yields of biomass, and be efficiently proc-
essed into fuel, power, and products that will help both
technology developers and investors identify viable ap-
plications of biomass (including alga for third-gene-
ration biofuel) for fuels, power or products [27,28]. The
U.S. Biomass Research and Development Technical Ad-
visory Committee released its Roadmap lays out a con-
crete R&D strategy and recommends policy measures
needed to improve biomass technologies and help create
an economically viable, sustainable and environmentally
desirable biobased industry [27]. USDA and DOE an-
nounced that combined, USDA and DOE will invest over
three years, for 21 biomass R&D and demonstration pro-
jects [58]. These projects are particularly aimed at over-
coming critical barriers in order to make the production of
biomass more efficient and cost-effective, in an effort to
contribute to the President Administration’s strategy of
bringing online cleaner, bio-based products and biofuels
to help reduce the U.S. dependence on oil from unstable
parts of the world and mitigate climate change. The
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed by
Congress in February this year, provide $ 787bn in ap-
propriations, including $ 37.5bn for energy efficiency and
renewable energy [4]. The U.S. has been no government
funding for algal research for over a decade [59]. The 6th
Annual Renewable Energy Finance Forum - Wall Street
will bring together a panel of industry visionaries, finan-
ciers and investors to debate key issues and conceptualize
the future of renewable energy finance in the U.S. [60,61].
With federal government support and growing confidence
among investors, the industry is gearing up to meet this
goal despite the challenging economic times. The senior
advisor to the Secretary of Energy on the Recovery Act in
his keynote speech emphasized the need for the Admini-
stration to expedite the allocation of stimulus funding
from the DOE, but also expressed the importance of tak-
ing a measured approach to the process to ensure a strong
foundation so that these projects will be viable in the long
term. “This effort is not about the next 1, 2 or 3 years – it’s
about the next 20 years. We need to set up the correct
infrastructure to do it right the first time around. Speed
and timeliness are important, but we also need to make
sure that we are supporting the best projects by adminis-
tering our programs in the most efficient and effective
way possible,” he stated: “DOE’s goal in the short term is
to get private capital off the sidelines and into the game.
This means the Department will fund both lower risk
mature technologies and higher risk innovative technolo-
gies under the Recovery Act. In the longer term, we will
return to being an underwriter of higher-risk innovative
technologies, plugging holes in areas such as energy effi-
ciency and commercialization scale-up, where private
capital markets have traditionally needed more support.”
One of the main messages that came out of the conference
was the assertion that the Administration’s goal of dou-
bling investment in renewable energy in the next two
years is not only realistic, but necessary, and that the final

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development 194
piece of the puzzle for unlocking pent-up private sector
investment is the issuance of loan and grant guidance from
DOE. ACORE predicts that once the government fi-
nancing comes into play, it will unlock over $ 4 billion per
month in funding for the industry over the next two years.
At this summer the DOE said that will make $ 85 million
to accelerate commercialization of algae-based and other
advanced biofuels [62]. The money is from this Act. Ac-
cording to a report the DOE will pick two or three projects
and funds them over three year period. Goal number one is
cost competitive algae based biofuels, while objective two
is the production of drop-in renewable fuels from other
biomass.
The EC will study the possibility of processing cereals
from existing intervention stocks into biofuels, finance a
campaign to inform farmers and forest operators, bring
forward a Forestry Action Plan and examine the possibil-
ity of using animal by-products and waste as energy
sources. Another aspect of sustainability relates to ge-
netically modified crops and organisms but while bio-
technology offers an important approach to improving
crop yields, safety in the food chain remains paramount.
The policy instruments employed to achieve the GHG
reduction target are directly linked with those for the
deployment target. The EU Renewable Energy Directive
will create conditions enabling renewable energy to play
a key role in reaching the GHG reduction target. In its
Strategy, the EC defines the role that biofuels, produced
from biomass, a renewable resource, may play in the
future as a source of renewable energy serving as an al-
ternative to the fossil fuel energy sources (chiefly oil)
used in the transport sector [24,26]. It also proposes
measures to promote the production and use of biofuels.
Accordingly, the EU has committed itself to the “20-
20-20” initiative: reducing greenhouse gas emissions by
20%, increasing the share of renewables in energy con-
sumption to 20% compared to 8.5% today and improving
energy efficiency by 20%. To put renewals into effect,
the EC tabled in January 2008 an integrated proposal for
Climate Action aimed at providing a secure and predict-
able investment climate for EU industry, to which, after
eleven months of legislative work, the European Parlia-
ment gave its backing Intelligent Energy – Europe II
Program [63]. At last, it is essential that the EC continues
to support research and innovation, particularly in order
to improve production processes and to lower costs. The
principal measures will focus on, inter alia, continuing
with activities in the field of research and development
via the 7th Framework Program for Research and Devel-
opment and the full use of second-generation biomass
and biofuels (i.e. originating from the processing of
ligno-cellulosic feedstock such as straw and forest resi-
dues).
Hannover Messe’s World Energy Dialogue took place
in April 2009 with the theme was “Where Future meets
Solutions.” The key to success lies in leveraging all
available sources and forms of energy towards achieving
the correct energy mix. It is also important for these
sources to be located in diverse geographic locations and
brought together via global grids made possible by in-
novative technologies and modes of energy transport.
Well-balanced, stable trade relations are another pivotal
factor, and this hinges on well-wrought foreign policy,
intelligent systems of energy supply, advances in energy
efficiency, and ongoing energy R&D aimed at broadening
the palette of available alternative. These ideas were dis-
cussed and brought to life by various global officials
within the energy sectors. According to OECD study, in
the EU-25 alone, goods and services provided by
eco-industries are estimated to represent around 2.2% of
the EU-25 GDP [64]. EU Eco-innovation under the
Competitiveness and Innovation Program (CIP) consists
of three components with budget € 433 million
(2007-2013) for 37 countries [64].
According to China’s National Development and Re-
form Commission China could generate 20% of its en-
ergy needs from renewable sources by 2020 [65]. Beijing
seeks to achieve these goals by directing a significant
share of China’s $ 590bn economic stimulus package to
low-carbon investment. About understanding of invest-
ments significance into innovations testifies carrying out
BIT Life Sciences’ 1st (Theme: “New Starting Line for
Decision Makers in Bio-economy Era”) and 2nd (Theme:
Innovative Biotechnology for Sustainable Bio-economy)
Annual World Congresses of iBio (Beijing 2008, Seoul
2009) by Chinese.
Currently the U.S. and EU’s state trade and subsidy
policies will be critical to biofuel production. Therefore
the burden of subsidy entirely lies upon on their taxpay-
ers. The U.S. support for biodiesel is much more recent
compared to that for ethanol. U.S. federal excise-tax
credit of $ 0.01 per gallon of crop-based biodiesel for
each percentage point share in the fuel blend was intro-
duced in January 2005. Today the U.S. additional tax
revenues generated by a profitable biodiesel industry will
be significantly larger than the value of the Federal tax
incentives provided to the industry. Assuming that the
biodiesel tax credit of one cent per gallon for agri-bio-
diesel and ½ cent per gallon for biodiesel from other
sources was extended past 2008, the U.S. program would
have cost $ 3.5 billion by 2015. However, as indicated
above the industry will generate $ 8.3 billion of new
revenue for the Federal Treasury for a positive net bal-
ance of $ 4.8 billion. According to the EU Strategy for
Biofuel, with the technologies currently available,
EU-produced biodiesel breaks even at oil prices around €
60 per barrel, while bioethanol becomes competitive with
oil prices of about € 90 per barrel. In compliance with to
the Staff Working document adopted together with this
Communication, which is based on the JRC Well to

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development195
Wheel analysis, the break even points for biodiesel and
for bioethanol are € 69-76 and € 63-85, respectively [25].
Further reductions cost will be needed for biofuels to
be able to compete effectively with gasoline and diesel
without subsidy [22-24]. According to key players’ pol-
icy production costs of conventional biofuels are, in gen-
eral, higher than oil-based fuels, the strong expansion in
the biofuel industry over the past few years have been
critically dependent upon public sector support programs.
Clearly the economics of biofuels are afforded favour-
able opportunities by these support programs, but it is
obvious that the industry has a number of vulnerabilities.
For example, while ethanol in the U.S. currently enjoys a
price premium as a fuel additive, it is uncertain whether
this would continue once the demand for oxygenate is
satisfied. Additionally, increasing demand for corn has
resulted in higher corn prices, thus narrowing ethanol
producers’ margins. Very high feedstock prices could
also prompt changes in policies regarding subsidies. A
further vulnerability is the unpredictability of the weather
and its impact on feedstock prices. For example, in North
America ethanol production has decreased significantly
in the past because corn planting in unusually wet condi-
tions resulted in short corn supplies and higher corn
prices. Nevertheless, issues related to land-use changes,
competition with the food supply and other biomass uses,
biodiversity, and competition for water resources will
place a limitation on how much first-generation biofuels
can be sustainably produced [23]. Harvesting biomass
from forests, if not done properly, can expose soil to
drying and erosion, reduce biodiversity, negatively im-
pact the food supply for beneficial insects and wood-
boring species, reduce organic matter, eliminate habitats
and denning sites, and limit flowers that support declin-
ing species of pollinators like bees, bats, butterflies and
hummingbirds, among other adverse effects [66]. Envi-
ronmentalists are concerned about tapping into available
forest biomass, but officials say it can be done in ways
that meet the country’s energy needs while maintaining
crucial forestlands.
How much is it available? Today the U.S. and EU at
first lay their hope mostly on advances second-generation
biofuels technologies by the use of forest woody biomass,
but significant technological development need to be
overcome to make second-generation technologies com-
mercially viable [22,23] and many environmental prob-
lems can occur when using forest woody biomass in the
global dealer. At present prices of biofuel only increase.
Key players of many measures of sustainable develop-
ment policies are “dangerously optimistic” as, in reality,
environment pollution increase [3,67]. Furthermore, the
market for greenhouse gases will be worth nearly $ 45
billion by 2010 and only increases (2004- $ 0.4 billion,
2005- 8.72 billion, 2006- $ 6.98 billion; 2007- $ 6.68
billion; 2008- $ 12.2 billion) [68] as well as unfavourable
development visualize in algal blooms. On the other hand
credit tool of Climate Change shows its small effective-
ness, and it is not known - how programs carried in the
framework of these credits can compensate the negative
effects of environment contamination. A question arises
as to how long governments will afford such heavy fi-
nancial burden aimed to state subsidiary of biofuel pro-
ducers instead of increasing investments in innovation
technologies. The environment recognizes neither ideo-
logical nor geographic boundaries, neither developed,
nor developing countries. I welcome developed coun-
tries’ initiatives aimed at mitigating the environmental
impact of harmful substances, but it should be noted that
such impact has global scale, so the world, as a whole,
needs to undertake specific cost effective measures to
change the situation. The sustainable development re-
quires global partnerships among all of the countries.
Combinations of policies, management approach and
resultant actions need to link international processes and
national perspectives to local action. It is already clear
that the capacity of some communities to adapt will
quickly be exceeded if environmental pollution goes
globally unmitigated. On the other hand it should be
noted that legislative and subsidy policies may not be
applied, undoubtedly, in developing and poor countries.
Run-time preferences in the implementation of legisla-
tive and subsidy policies of industry may weaken com-
panies’ competitiveness in world markets and as result
technological lag. To help these most vulnerable com-
munities, it is essential for the world to devise a plan of
action to technological development. Given the challenge
facing us we must produce a multi-lateral agreement that
deals adequately with calls of all regions sustainable de-
velopment. Separate solutions provided on local level
cannot have high-performance as we are dealing with a
comprehensive biological system. Therefore, the need for
taking global action stems from very serious observations
also conducted by International Panel for Climate
Change (IPCC) [3]. Our vision consist in fact that Global
Sustainable Development may be only through develop-
ment decision in cost effective manner aimed to tech-
nologies global partnership of all word players with their
synchronous action in area of eco-innovation.
The U.S. agreed in January 2006 to co-operate on the
development and transfer of technology to enable green-
house-gas emissions to be reduced. Under this agreement,
known as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Devel-
opment and Climate (AP6), member countries are work-
ing with private-sector partners in several industry and
energy sectors to voluntarily reduce emissions. The
sooner a start is made, the quicker a new generation of
more efficient and low- or zero-carbon energy systems
can be put in place. To this end, they requested the In-
ternational Energy Agency to “advice on alternative en-
ergy scenarios and strategies aimed at a clean, clever and

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development 196
competitive energy future” [22]. EC also plans to assist
developing countries through a specific aid program for
biofuels. Its assistance programs aim to promote effec-
tive cooperation, including inter alia the development of
national biofuel platforms and regional biofuel action
plans [24].
The U.S. and EU can play crucial roles in these policy
areas, using public spending and grants to create and
maintain necessary infrastructure, promote technological
innovation and incentivize behavioural change. It is ob-
vious that the budget revenue of the developed countries
is insufficient for a global technology transfer and tech-
nical support around the word. It is also obvious that the
budget revenue of the other countries is insufficient for a
technology development or global technology transfer.
Therefore, global sustainable development tools must
provide incentives to stimulate global investment in
eco-innovation projects. Thus, the dilemma faced by
policy makers is how to balance the real environmental
pollution the need to provide certainty for investors. This
offer could be designed in a manner that would simulta-
neously maintain environmental integrity and minimize
risk for investors. Private local investors’ attraction of
regions required from the key players development pol-
icy and institutional decision aimed to financial risks
reduction for stimulation of investment attraction in
eco-innovation through cost effective market solution,
without legislative and business subsidized investment
initiatives, which bear heavily on region’s local taxpay-
ers.
The Climate Technology Initiative (CTI) held a side
event at the UNFCCC, SB30 meetings in Bonn, Ger-
many on 5 June 2009 [69]. The event entitled “Imple-
menting & Accelerating Technology Transfer for the
Transition to a Low Carbon Economy - Lessons from the
work of CTI and UNDPA”. Asia Forum for Clean En-
ergy Financing (AFCEF) organized and sponsored by
CTI and ICETT attracted 60 submissions out of which 11
projects were shortlisted for coaching and showcasing
before investors. Mr. Alan Miller, Principal Climate
Change Specialist, Climate Change Environment and
Social Development Department with the World Bank
Group’s International Finance Corporation, emphasized
the urgent need to redirect private sector investment to
clean energy projects in order to achieve the objectives of
the UNFCCC. CTI PFAN (Private Financing Advisory
Network) is a multilateral initiative organized under the
umbrella of CTI with contributions from CTI member
countries, USAID, ICETT, APP, and REEEP which of-
fers a free project financing advisory and investment
matchmaking service to project developers to help them
raise private sector finance that works in many develop-
ing markets. PFAN program received endorsement in
COP13 decisions (4/CP.13) for its work during the pilot
phase, which led to the expansion of the program with
new funding from USAID, APP and CTI. CTI’s PFAN
currently focuses on mitigation projects, but going for-
ward upstream technology development, adaptation pro-
jects, and possibly forestry are envisaged for PFAN sup-
port. Our research shows that quantity of CTI and PFAN
projects are less than needed today. Therefore it is nec-
essary to improve the strategy and development of gen-
eral lines of environmental management, leading to im-
proved access to financing particularly private capital
market to accelerate the broader development and diffu-
sion of environmentally sound technologies.
How long will it take? The world could actually en-
hance economic output and welfare by pursuing a path of
mitigation cost through profitable eco-innovation. If we
do not use this way, the negative effects of environment
contamination will be difficult to global reverse. Tech-
nological improvements will need a better incentive
technology to encourage full participation and compli-
ance. Recently, the combination of escalating costs for
energy and foods combined with climate change has re-
newed interest in algae as a clean, carbon neutral energy
source. The algal industry needs international and gov-
ernment investment because the initial investments and
risks are very high as well as there is not enough quantity
of specialists with experience of algae industrial manu-
facturing management and technology development.
Roughly 50% of Algae World 2008 international con-
ference respondents had less than five years experience
in the algal industry while about 16% with over 20 years
of industry experience [59]. Therefore many new studies
and contracts between R & D Centers with private com-
panies are sentenced to repeat past mistakes. The de-
termination to find a solution may have been fueled in
part by desperation—and the fact that the world had just
been dealt a sobering slap in the face by the financial
crisis. That the Copenhagen talks at times seemed like a
tussle between the US and China to take the lead in ad-
dressing climate change suggests this decade will witness
some tremendous geopolitical changes. The countries
involved failed come to a binding agreement, but instead
signed the Copenhagen Accord., which pledged $ 30
billion a year to a fund for poor countries to adapt to cli-
mate change from 2010-2012, and $ 100 billion a year by
2020.
5. Our Vision
Technological progress and environmental protection are
not mutually exclusive, and governments, researches and
business communities must mostly focus on emerging
technological, procedural, organizational, institutional
and political innovations based on the concept of the
sustainability around the world. The analysis demon-
strates the urgency required for policy and investment
action in microalgae manufacturing development. Changes
in fuel production, food and agricultural technology drive

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development 197
economic growth in developing countries and contribute
significantly to economic well-being in rich countries.
Identifying opportunities in the next wave of technolo-
gies, along with other policy initiatives including finan-
cial crisis actions and climate policy, will affect renew-
able energy companies today and in the future. The grav-
ity of this solution increases in the face of Biofuels Di-
gest updated Advanced Biofuels tracking database,
which show that biofuel production capacity now pro-
jected to reach 1.704 billion gallons by the end of 2013,
based on announced projects and updated company
guidance [70]. The database is now tracking 56 compa-
nies with advanced biofuels projects in 13 countries. The
previous 1.0 release of the database last year had pro-
jected production capacity at 1.3 billion gallons. Among
algal fuel is projected to reach 421.08 million gallons per
year in capacity by 2013. Therefore including microalgae
production by waste and wastewater using in production
and bio cycles open new ways for environmentally
friendly manufacturing and nature restoration and con-
servation of nature. Our strategy believes that the cost
saving of raw material with the use of wastewaters
through their biological cleaning will help raise the
availability of microalgae biomass for food, agriculture,
medicinal and biofuel producers, thus leading to resolu-
tion of global tasks facing the world community. These
benefits of microalgae are so overwhelming that this,
combined with the prospect of the improvement nature
protection, makes it imperative for the world to devise an
international response and a plan of action. Incentives
will be needed for the development of industry-led plat-
forms such as the World Microalgae Technology Plat-
form. It should make it possible to establish a shared
World vision and strategy for the production and use of
microalgae addressed to biofuels, food and feed additives
manufacturing, wastewater cleaning, climate change, etc.
as well as the use of financial investments in cost effec-
tive manner. The environment management mission of
the World Microalgae Technology Platform is to con-
tribute to: the development of cost-competitive eco-in-
novation through initiatives of the creation, promotion
and support regional private Microalgae Research, Tech-
nology Development and Demonstration Centers aimed
to reduce risk of private investment activities and pro-
mote eco-innovation technology transfer around the word.
Today the global financial crisis led many foreign inves-
tors to seek out conservative investments closer to home
rather than in emerging markets [71]. Therefore it is very
necessary to develop global network of demonstration
projects around the world aimed to promote financial
investment and technology transfer. This resolves uncer-
tainties that create difficulties in securing project financ-
ing and reduces the cost of measurement, thereby facili-
tating investment. In practice, technological break-
throughs will almost certainly be needed for Environ-
mental Management. The difficulties in realizing all this
in the time frame of our analysis do not justify inaction
or delay, which would raise the long-term economic,
security and environmental cost. The World Microalgae
Technology Platform with its adequate global calls in-
ternational financial funds can be the key cost-effective
tools for global reverse unfavourable change of environ-
Figure 1. New design & build biological system addressed to global environment management and sustainable development
through including microalgae and their biomass in production and bio cycles

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development 198
ment. The piloting innovative finance methods is one of
the key priorities in its small-scale project funding, de-
signed to have a “wide ripple effect”. Each year of delay
in implementing of this environment management tool
through the use and commercialization microalgae eco-
innovation would have a disproportionately larger effect
on sustainable development. It is possible to expect that
in the near future the abovementioned problems will be
better perceived, thus leading to global reorientation of
global sustainaible development management priorities.
This should provide the opportunity to see the future in a
new vision, where technology can serve as a revelation
of the truth and where every endeavor is governed by
reflection on and appreciation of the environment.
Fostering access to microalgae technologies should
thus be a key objective for policies aimed at sustainable
development, environmental management, drinking wa-
ter conservation, cleanup and restoration of lakes and
mitigation of global climate change as well as for bio-
diesel, food and feed additives manufacturing etc. In this
case sun microalgae production may be the main future
resource for development of Life Industry (food and feed,
etc.) and biofuel production as well as for environment
management and sustainable development (Figure 1).
Microalgae were the key tool for life development on
earth; at present algae produce approximately 50-70% of
the atmospheric oxygen and are the World Ocean Water
natural cleaner. It is an approved choice of Nature.
Therefore microalgae must be the key tool for the new
design and building sustainable development of life and
environmental management.
REFERENCES
[1] International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2007.
http://www.ifad.org/climate/factsheet/e.pdf
[2] The World Bank, “Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate
Change in Agriculture,” World Development Report: Ag-
riculture for Development, 2008. http://siteresources. world
bank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/2795087-1192112387
976/WDR08_15_Focus_F.pdf
[3] R. Pachauri, “Where’s the World’s Plan of Action against
Climate Change?” 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/com-
mentisfree/cif-green/2009/jun/23/climate-change-ipcc
[4] G. Platt, “A Bridge to Recovery,” Global Finance, Vol.
23, No. 3, 2009, pp. 26-29. http://www.gfmag.com/ar-
chives/33-march-2009/706-features-a-bridge-to-recovery.
html
[5] 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.
[6] R. J. Clarke, “Water Crisis?” 2003. http://www.oecdobserver.
org/news/fullstory.php/aid/935/Water_crisis_.html
[7] M. Zalewski, “Ecohydrology. IHP-V Project 2.3/2.4,” United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
McClain, Paris, 1998. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/
0011/001146/114659Eo.pdf
[8] D. A. Clifford, “Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Rule De-
velopment,” Water Tap, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2005, pp. 10-12.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/dw/Water_Tap/water_tap_ju
ne_2005.pdf
[9] European Environment Agency, “Water Resources across
Europe—Confronting Water Scarcity and Drought. EEA
Report No. 2/2009,” March 2009. http://www.eea.europa.
eu/publications/water-resources-across-europe
[10] W. J. Cosgrove and F. R. Rijsberman, “World Water
Vision: Making Water Everybody’s Business,” Earthscan
Publications, London, 2000. http://www.worldwatercouncil.
org/fileadmin/wwc/Library/WWVision/TableOfContents.
pdf
[11] J. S. Ramsdell, D. M. Anderson and P. M. Gilbert, “HARR-
NESS: Harmful Algal Research and Response: A Na-
tional Environmental Science Strategy 2005-2015,” Eco-
logical Society of America, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp.
1-96. http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/HARRNESS_18189
_23044.pdf
[12] C. B. Lopez, Q. Dortch, E. B. Jewett and D. Garrison,
“Scientific Assessment of Marine Harmful Algal Blooms,”
Interagency Working Group on Harmful Algal Blooms,
Hypoxia, and Human Health of the Joint Subcommittee
on Ocean Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.,
2008. http://ocean.ceq.gov/about/docs/jsost_marine_habs_
1208.pdf
[13] Soil and Water Conservation Society of Metro Halifax,
“Biological Controls,” 2006. http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/
ccn/info/Science/SWCS/biomanip.html
[14] P. Warrington. “Aquatic Pathogens Cyanophytes. The Blue-
Green Algae,” 2009. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/
reference/cyanophytes.html
[15] A. Afsar and S. Groves, “Blue-Green Algae Management
in Aquaculture,” 1995. http://www.phoslock.com.au/new-
docs/FRONT%20PAGE/Blue-Green%20Algae%20Mana
gement%20in%20Aquaculture.pdf
[16] Soil & Water Conservation Society of Metro Halifax, “The
Blue-Green Algae (Cyanobacteria),” 2007. http://www.che-
bucto.ns.ca/ccn/info/Science/SWCS/cyano.html
[17] S. Pitos, B. A. Jacson, F. R. C. Path and B. J. B. Wood,
“Sources of the Eutrophication Problems Associated with
Toxic Algae: An Overview,” Journal of Environmental
Health, Vol. 64, No. 5, 2001, pp. 25-32. http://www.co.what
com.wa.us/health/pdf/water/blue-green-algae-research.pdf
[18] P. Krasprzak, “Objectives of Biomanipulation,” in: R. De
Bernardi and G. Giusanni, Eds., Guidelines of Lake Man-
agement. Biomanipulation in Lakes and Reservoirs Man-
agement. UN Environment Program, Vol. 7, 1995, pp.
15-32. http://www.ilec.or.jp/eg/pubs/guideline/Vol.7 _Bio
manipulation.pdf
[19] P. Kasprzak, J. Benndorf, T. Mehner and R. Koschel,
“Biomanipulation of Lake Ecosystems: An Introduction,”
Freshwater Biology, Vol. 47, No. 12, 2002, pp. 2277-2281.
[20] R. D. Gulati, “Manipulation of Fish Population for Lake
Recovery from Eutrophication in the Temperate Region,”

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development199
In: R. De Bernardi and G. Giusanni, Eds., Guidelines of
Lake Management. Biomanipulation in Lakes and Reser-
voirs Management, UN Environment Program, Vol. 7,
1995, pp. 53-80. http://www.ilec.or.jp/eg/pubs/guideline/
Vol.7_Biomanipulation.pdf
[21] B. Hilary, “U.K. Companies to Face More Risks under
Environmental Directive,” Business Insurance Europe,
January 2009, p. 2.
[22] International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook,”
2006. http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2006/weo2006.
pdf
[23] Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, “World
Oil Outlook,” 2008. http://www.opec.org/library/World%
20Oil%20Outlook/pdf/WOO2008.pdf
[24] The European Union, “An EU Strategy for Biofuels,” Com-
mission Communication, February 2006. http://europa.eu/
scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l28175.htm
[25] The European Union, “Report on the Progress Made in the
Use of Biofuels and other Renewable Fuels in the Mem-
ber States of the European Union,” Commission Report
on Biofuels, January 2007. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smart
api/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg
=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2006&nu_doc=845
[26] The European Union, “Transport at a Crossroads 2008.
TERM 2008: Indicators Tracking Transport and Envi-
ronment in the European Union,” EEA Report No. 3/2009,
2008. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/transport-at-
a-crossroads
[27] Technical Advisory Committee & Biomass Research and
Development Initiative, “Roadmap for Bioenergy and
Biobased Products in the United States,” Biomass Research
and Development, 2007. http://www.biomass.govtools.us
[28] United States Department of Agriculture, “USDA Tar-
geted Incentives for Greenhouse Gas Sequestration,” 2003.
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/06/fs-0194.html
[29] European Climate Change Programme Working Group,
“ECCP Working Group on JI/CDM Conclusions,” No-
vember 2002. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/jicdm/
jicdm_final_conclusions.pdf
[30] Global Fuels Staff, “Global Industrial Energy Review,”
Global Fuels Magazine, February 2007, pp. 11-19.
[31] Efeedlink, “More Ethanol in Gasoline will Mean Higher
Meat, Feed Prices in the US,” 2009. http://www.efeedlink.
com/Membership/dc15eb4f-c423-47b8-9e69-ad8f4bb258
92.html
[32] A. Avagyan, “Global Prospects for Microalgae Produc-
tion for Biofuels and for the Preservation of Nature,”
Global Fuel Magazine, February 2008, pp. 22-27. http://
www.propubs.com/global-fuels/eGF_Feb08_LowRes.pdf
[33] A. Avagyan, “Microalgae: Big Feed Potential in a Small
Package,” Feed International, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2008, pp.
16-18. http://www.fi-digital.com/fi/200803/data/feedinter
national200803-win32.zip
[34] D. R. Davis, M. D. Epp and H. D. Riordan, “Changes in
USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops,
1950 to 1999,” Journal of the American College of Nutri-
tion, Vol. 23, No. 6, 2004, pp. 669-682.
[35] H. C. Indresh, “Organic Acids, Plant Extracts can be Ef-
fective Choice for Antibiotic Alternative,” Feed Interna-
tional, Vol. 28, No. 8, 2007, pp. 10-12.
[36] World of Renewables, “Taiwan Green Energy Industry
Set to Boom after New Law Enacted,” Renewables Toady,
Vol. 1, No. 2, 2009. http://www.worldofrenewables.com/
archive/index.php/t-34997.html
[37] A. Avagyan, “Microalgae Production Development
Global Prospects and Profitable Technology Wasterwater
Purification by the Use Microalgae,” Water and Waste-
water International, 2008. http://ww.pennnet.com/articles/
article_display.cfm?article_id=340236&dcmp=WaterWor
ldEnl
[38] T. F. Riesing, “Cultivating Algae for Liquid Fuel Produc-
tion,” 2009. http://oakhavenpc.org/cultivating_algae.htm
[39] 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_from_algae.pdf
[40] L. Weafer, “Food versus Fuel Debate Continiues to Churn,”
Feed International, Vol. 29, No. 3, May 2008, p. 6.
[41] O. Danielo, “An Algae-Based Fuel,” Biofutur, No. 255,
May 2005. http://www.greenfuelonline.com/gf_files/algae
fuel.pdf
[42] “Algae Grow Your Own? Algal Biodiesel: Fact or Fic-
tion?” 2008. http://www.americanscientist.org/template/As
setDetail/assetid/53356; http://i-r-www.i-r-squared.blogspot.
com/2007/05/algal-biodiesel-fact-or-fiction.html
[43] Chevron Corporation and National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, “Chevron Using Algae,” 2007. http://www.chev
ron.com/news/press/release/?id=2007-10-31; http://www.
greencarcongress.com/2007/10/chevron-and-nre.html
[44] J. LeCrone, “Why Algae-to-Biofuels? Why not Now?”
2008. http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080324/0378475.html
[45] G. Sweeney, “Shell and HR Biopetroleum Form Joint
Venture for Algal Biofuel Production,” 2007. http://www.
greencarcongress.com/2007/12/shell-and-hr-bi.html
[46] Aquaflow Bionomin, 2007. http://www.bio-diesel.co.nz
[47] AlgoDyne, 2007. http://www.algodynecorp.com
[48] Maes Anturio, 2007. http://www.maesanturio.org
[49] Solix Biofuels, 2007. http://www.solixbiofuels.com
[50] ExxonMobil Corporation, “ExxonMobil to Launch Bio-
fuels Program,” 2009. http://www.businesswire.com/portal/
site/exxonmobil/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&ndm
ConfigId=1001106&newsId=20090714005554&newsLang
=en
[51] “Chinese Company Uses Innovative Approach to Make
Biofuel,” 2009. http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_china/
2009-10-21/862888436184.html
[52] World Health Organization, “Guidelines for Safe Disposal
of Unwanted Pharmaceuticals in and after Emergencies,”
1999. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/medical
waste/unwantpharm.pdf

New Design & Build Biological System through the Use of Microalgae Addressed to Sustainable Development 200
[53] M. Veasna and V. O. A. Khmer, “Original Report from
Phnom Penh,” 2007. http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2007/05/
us-dea-pledges-50000-for-pharmaceuticals.html
[54] Health Research Association, “Pharmaceuticals Returns
& Destruction,” 2009. http://www.health-research.org/files/
pharmacy/PharmaceuticalsReturns.pdf.
[55] Environmental Protection Agency, “Unused Pharmaceu-
ticals in the Health Care Industry: EPA Interim Report,”
2008. http://epa.gov/guide/304m/2008/hsi-PRELIM-study-
200808.pdf
[56] “Proceedings of the Roundtable Discussion on Managing
Unused Pharmaceuticals in NYS,” 15 May 2008, pp. 1-9.
http://www.mass.gov/dep/toxics/stypes/nypharm.pdf
[57] Environmental Protection Agency, “Solving the Pharma-
ceuticals Disposal Problem through Product Steward-
ship,” 2006. http://www.calpsc.org/assets/ppt/Pharmaceu
ticalsDec06fd.ppt
[58] United States Department of Agriculture, “Release No.
0067.08, 2008. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.
7_0_A/7_0_1RD?printable=true&contentidonly=true&co
ntentid=2008/03/0067.xml
[59] M. Edwards, “The Algal Industry Survey,” Arizona State
University & Center for Management Technology, Tempe,
2009. http://www.futureenergyevents.com/algae/survey/
[60] REFF-Wall Street, “The 6th Annual Renewable Energy
Finance Forum,” 2009. http://www.reffwallstreet.com/ima
ges/docs/wall%20st%208pp%2009.pdf
[61] “Renewable Energy and Financial Leaders Share Per-
spectives on Industry Growth Potential.” http://www.re
newableenergyfocus.com/view/2426/renewable-energy-and-
financial-leaders-share-perspectives-on-industry-growth-
potential-/
[62] J. Lane, “DOE Earmarks $ 85 Million for Algae, Drop-in
Biofuels,” Biofuel Digest, July 2009. http://biofuelsdigest.
com/blog2/2009/07/19/doe-earmearks-85-million-for-alga
e-drop-in-biofuels/
[63] Commission of the European Communities, “Intelligent
Energy Europe II 2009 Work Programme,” 2009. http://ec.
europ a.e u/e ner gy/ intelligent/call_for_proposals/doc/wp200
9_en.pdf
[64] European Commission’s Environment, “Eco-Innovation:
All Innovation, which can Benefit the Environment,” 2009.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eco-innovation/what_en.htm;
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eco-innovation/docs/call09/
CIP_Eco_innovation_Guide_proposers_2009_FINAL.pdf
[65] J. Borger and J. Watts, “China Launches Green Power
Revolution to Catch up on West,” The Guardian, 2009.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/china-green-
energy-solar-wind
[66] L. Gibson, “Balancing Act,” 2009. http://www.biomass
magazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=2814
[67] S. Connor, “Are Greenhouse Gases Causing Climate to
Destabilize?” 2004. http://www.ghgx.org/html/news/news_
archive/GHGs_Destabilizing_climate.pdf
[68] M. Faden, “The Pollution Boom,” 2009. http://www.ghgx.
org/html/news/news_archive/ GHG_emissions_trading.PDF
[69] Climate Technology Initiative, “Implementing & Accel-
erating Technology Transfer for the Transition to a Low
Carbon Economy – Lessons from the Work of CTI and
UNDP,” Climate Change Talks, Bonn, 5 June 2009. http://
www.climatetech.net/news/WhatsNew.cfm?Page=1&News
ID=56285; http://www.resourcesaver.com/file/toolmanager/
O105UF1955.pdf
[70] Biofuels Digest, March 2010. http://biofuelsdigest.com/
bdigest/2010/03/02/advanced-biofuels-capacity-will-incre
ase-to-1-7-billon-gallons-by-2013-downloadable-database/
[71] G. Platt, “Emerging Markets Focus,” Global Finance, Vol.
22, No. 11, December 2008, pp. 39-41.