Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems, 2013, 3, 287-297
Published Online December 2013 (
Open Access JSBS
Theory of Global Sustainable Development Based on
Microalgae in Bio and Industrial Cycles,
Management-Changing Decisions in Areas of Climate
Change and Waste Management
Armen B. Avagyan
Research & Industry Centre of Photosynthesizing Organisms, Feed Additives and
Physiologically Active Compounds, Yerevan, Armenia
Received May 22, 2013; revised June 14, 2013; accepted July 6, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Armen B. Avagyan. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The paper provides requested management-changing decisions through implementation of conclusions of Global Sus-
tainable Development theory based on including of microalgae in Bio and Industrial Cycles in the area of waste-related
management challenges within creating market opportunities for industry through expansion of resource efficiency use
across global supply chains and new design and building sustainable development with contemporary manufacturing of
value added products. A truly coherent waste management and other production policy (biofuel, biopharmaceuticals,
food, feed and perfumery additives) and mitigation of Climate Change are ways to bring these traces closer to cost ef-
fective manufacturing, improving of resource efficiency use, well being economy and human health. Offered techno-
logical change dramatically increase biomass feedstock resources, reduce waste origin of greenhouse emission (since
13% - 17%), organics sent to landfill, pyrolyses, etc. and create a model that all elements along the waste value chain
create economic, societal and/or environmental value.
Keywords: Microalgae; Global Sustainable Development; Climate Change; Waste Management; Biofuel; Feed and
Perfumery Additives; Biopharmaceuticals
1. Introduction
Today waste conversion is one of nowadays viable an-
swers to the waste problem spreading over the World [1-
4]. Waste management practices impact on greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions by affecting energy consumption, me-
thane generation, carbon sequestration, and non-energy-
related manufacturing emissions [5-7]. Policymakers,
managers and scientists need to recognize that ecosys-
tems reduce their ability to deliver the benefits which we
need and ecosystems provide [4]. Biotechnology and
industry should play an important role in effectively ad-
dressing the unsustainable exploitation of waste re-
sources around the world by addressing its own first pri-
orities and values, and must participate in the develop-
ment of alternate innovation methodologies and tech-
nologies that make environmental and industrial projects
more adaptable, sustainable and robust in order to re-
spond to a range of possible future scenarios.
Motivation is a kind of basic function of management,
because without motivation, innovative idea cannot work
effectively. Adaptive management strategies and biote-
chnology allow of changing course based on new insight,
help to establish and sustain institutional settings and
technological systems that are flexible and error-tolerant.
The biotechnological management game-changing deci-
sions are offered in the book “Theory of Global Sustain-
able Development based on including microalgae in Bio
and Industrial Cycles. New Design and Building of Bio-
logical System”, which described also ways of innova-
tion management of waste through increasing of resource
efficiency use across global supply chains, building of
products and technology roadmaps, posing new questions
for investigation, generating new connections among old
facts, and finding of new environments in which trans-
formational solutions of the Global challenges were pro-
liferated [1]. A truly biotechnological waste processing
and other production policies are ways to bring these
traces closer to cost effective manufacturing, well being
economy, improving of resource efficiency use and hu-
man health. Therefore this paper addressed to how to
design, build and operate the waste management and
manufacturing of value added products by the use of mi-
croalgae linked to Global Sustainable Development and
mitigation of Climate change.
2. Discussion
2.1. Waste Management
In 2011 the world generated 2 billion tons of municipal
solid waste (MSW) [8] Europeans share is approximately
265 million tons of MSW in 2012 and globally the pro-
duction of MSW will rise from the current 1.3 to 2.2 bil-
lion tones (the annual cost of solid waste management is
projected to rise from the current $205 billion to $375
billion in 2025 per year) [9]. A significant fraction of
MSW consists of organic bio-waste (biological origin
and biodegradable), estimated at a total of up to about
140 Mt of which up to 37 Mt originates from the food
and drink industry [10]. The bio-waste technologies
convert such biodegradable waste to humus via com-
posting, energy via anaerobic digestion, biodiesel or eth-
anol via fuel conversion, or fertilizer through pyrolyses.
The EPA reports, covering of this waste generation from
1960 up to 2009, showed that average person produced
1.96 kg per day of biowaste [2] and the U.S. generated
243 million tons of MSW in 2009, 250 million tons in
2010 [3]. A total of 61.3 million tons of municipal waste
was recycled, while 20.8 million tons of organic waste
composed. In 2010, Americans generated about of trash
and recycled and composted over 85 million tons equiv-
alent to a 34.1 percent recycling rate. In addition, 11.9%
(29 million tons) of this waste was incinerated in
Waste-to-Energy (WtE) facilities. Meanwhile landfill
accounted for 131.9 million tons, or 54.3%. Europeans
incinerated 69.5 million tons of MSW per year between
2007 and 2010 [11].
In May 9, 2013 the daily mean concentration of CO2 in
the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400
parts per million (ppm) for the first time since measure-
ments began in 1958 (in the middle of the XIX cen-
tury concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
was about 280 ppm) [12] which confirm that we must to
account unforeseeable changes in the nature. According
to the EPA solid waste are largest source of GHG emis-
sions of landfill methane (CH4), followed by wastewater
CH4 and nitrous oxide (N2O) (3% of 2004 emissions)
[13]. Canada has highest level of municipal waste gen-
eration per capita (above 800 kg) in comparison with
other developed countries and its total GHG emissions
estimated to 702 megatons CO2 equivalent (Mt CO2 Eq),
an increase of approximately 1 Mt (0.14%) from the
2010 level of 701 Mt [14]. Landfills face more stringent
regulation of CH4 collection, and incineration is hindered
by increasingly tough regulations on emissions. What
kinds of biotechnological approach are relevant in this
context to deal with new typ es of risks and oppo rtunities?
This requires more in-depth analysis, which might touch
upon factors such as the type of policy in use, manage-
ment design, non-economic barriers, resource intensity
and technology demand for set realistic expectations of
policy outcomes.
The perception that landfills are not a viable long term
option has driven incentives towards renewable energy
and waste management. WtE facilities are integrated into
broader waste management regimes aimed at preventing
the use of landfills and as an attractive technology option
to promote low carbon growth in the crowded renewable
energy landscape through the capture of CH4, which is a
naturally occurring by-product of the decomposition of
waste in a landfill or the anaerobic digestion of sewage
sludge. Organic matter converts ultimately to CH4 (65%),
CO2 (35%) and power [15-17] and their market is set to
be worth $26 bn by 2016 [16]. However since 2006 up to
2010 approximately 95% of the global WtE market was
accounted only two technologies: incineration and an-
aerobic digestion [18]. Although combustion technolo-
gies continue to lead the market, advanced thermal trea-
tment technology deployments such as pyrolysis are ex-
pected to pick up as diminishing landfill capacity im-
proves WtE economics. Pyrolysis, plasma gasification,
and gasification are expected to gain relative market
share and together will comprise over 30% of the total
WtE market by 2015. While more than 800 thermal WtE
plants currently operate in nearly 40 countries around the
globe, these facilities treated just 11% of MSW generated
worldwide in 2011 compared to the 70% that was land-
filled [8]. WtE systems will treat at least 261 million tons
of waste annually by 2022, with a total estimated output
of 283 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity and heat gen-
eration is 221 TWh in 2010, global market reaches from
$ 6.2 billion in 2012 up to $29.2 billion by 2022 [8,9].
Under a more optimistic scenario, WtE can potentially
treat 396 million tons of MSW per year with producing
of 429 TWh of power.
What are the main bottlenecks to achieving of waste
management objectives? Despite these greatly encourag-
ing forecasts, there are a number of challenges facing the
waste conversion industry. Public opinion plagues pro-
tested against some profiles of waste conversion tech-
nologies [19]. Such technologies as pyrolyses and gasi-
fication has a negative association with waste incinera-
tion, and people can be reluctant to have such projects
situated close to them. The principal source of revenue
from Methane Power’s landfill gas to energy projects is
Open Access JSBS
the bundled sale of electricity and renewable energy cer-
tificates to local utilities. The pricing is entirely depend-
ent upon the contractual terms that the company is able
to negotiate with the relevant utility. The sale of carbon
credits from eligible projects is another potential revenue
stream and can destroy by a particular project. Simulta-
neously, the market price per ton of these credits can
fluctuate greatly, relevant factors being the standard
against which a project is verified and the market in to
which the carbon credits are being sold. Current market
pricing for carbon credits is at historic lows, and policy
do not provide tax incentives or subsidies, making life
uncomfortable for those whose business plan has been
heavily carbon-credit focused [8,20].
Biomass gasification technologies have been demon-
strated and implemented successfully at large scale, but
inefficiencies in the technology and other non-technical
barriers render biomass gasification economically unvia-
ble in comparison to fossil-based energy [21]. Simulta-
neously, the speculative nature of many Waste-to-Biofuel
projects has led to a lack of consensus over the most ef-
fective technologies and appropriate business model for
conversion projects. Indeed financing these new and
emerging technologies on a commercial scale is difficult
in today’s cautious financial environment and the end
result is that only very few companies of waste conver-
sion technologies reach full scale commercial viability
[16]. Biogas producing is also a complex technological
process that makes monitoring complicated [15]. How-
ever burning of CH4 (with generation as one of final
product of CO2) is grounded that such product at 21
times less harmful by GNG indicator as decrease CH4
emission [22]. So, risk profiles of waste conversion
technologies can be high, meaning project implementa-
tion is extremely hard. The EPA provided that more
companies understand these uncertainties and risks [13].
In addition, 11.9%, or 29 million tons of the U.S. waste
was incinerated in WtE facilities, down from 31.6 mil-
lion tons in 2006, less than 29.7 million tons estimated in
1990 [3]. The CEWEP Report check the possible ef-
fects of the main parameters of energy efficiency per-
formance in the R1 formula (Recovery (R1) efficiency
factor) with a view to gathering information for the de-
termination of a possible climate factor and found that is
met only 65.6% (206 WtE plants out of the total 314 in-
vestigated) [11]. The CEWEP explained that it is much
more difficult to achieve the R1 threshold, in particular if
plants are small and can only export electricity (often
with little or no opportunity to export heat). The analysis
pointed also to the fact that over 75% of Europe’s 480
WtE facilities are more than ten years old and many will
need modernizing to adhere to the current strict legal
requirements, especially of flue gas treatment [23]. So,
the industry is holding its’ breath to see what will happen
next. The challenges are clear: choosing the right tech-
nology for each company and then delivering an opera-
tional project cost effectively and at scale. What novel
type of management, technological and economic ap-
proaches, systems design, policy, and stewardship can be
used for effectively waste management through mitiga-
tion of waste landfilling, pyrolyses, methane and carbon
manufacturing as well a s increase effectiveness of waste-
water cleaning?
2.2. Microa lgae Appl i c at ion for Management an d
Conversation of Waste
The economics of biomass power generation are criti-
cally dependent upon the availability of a secure, long-
term supply of feedstock at a competitive cost. The main
question regarding the viability of biomass plants lies in
the development of a reliable feedstock supply chain, es-
pecially because long-term feedstock agreements are es-
sential for financing of any biomass project. Many bio-
mass generation technologies are mature and are not
likely to undergo significant technological change, while
cost reductions through scale-up will be modest [24-26].
Potential bio-energy supply until 2050 up to 700 EJ/yr
was estimate from marginal lands (0 - 150 EJ/yr), forest
residues (0 - 150 EJ/yr) as well as relatively low potential
can be found in residues from agriculture (15 - 70 EJ/yr),
dry manure (5 - 55 EJ/yr) and organic waste—only 5 - 50
EJ/yr [27]. Can we increase feedstock resources through
the use of waste?
The biological method stands out as most effective and
economically efficient method for the purification of in-
dustrial and municipal wastewaters by using the micro-
biological activated sludge. However, bacteria of the ac-
tivated sludge have low stability to high concentration of
organic and mineral components, thus considering in-
creased rate of water flow and also requires further de-
struction of superfluous quantity of activated sludge [1].
The application of microalgae for wastewater purify-
cation opened the possibility of alternative approaches as
they expose higher stability which enables their use in
more concentrated and toxic environments and obtain
higher purification rate compared with activated sludge.
Wastewater is also an attractive resource for algae pro-
duction due to its nutrient content and low cost and cou-
pled with an increased push to dramatically reduce or-
ganics sent to landfill, pyrolyses, and carbon manufac-
turing and can be the drive towards innovation waste ma-
The U.S. Office of Fuels Development funded the
Aquatic Species Program (ASP (NREL/TP-580-24190,
1978 - 1996, $25 million)) aimed to develop technology
on production of biodiesel from high lipid-content algae
[28-30]. A major conclusion from the ASP analyses is
that there is little prospect for any alternatives to the open
Open Access JSBS
pool designs for microalgae production, given low cost
requirements associated with fuel production and the
factors that most influence on cost are biological and not
engineering-related, and the only plausible near to
mid-term application of microalgae biofuels requires bio-
mass manufacturing by integration with wastewater treat-
ment. Two hundred thousand hectares (less than 0.1% of
climatically suitable land areas in the U.S.) could pro-
duce one quad of fuel (1.055 × 1018 J), approximately
9.5 million acres would be required to produce 15,000
gallons of oil per acre from algae. To produce would be
required soybeans almost 3bn acres of soybeans fields, or
over 1bn acres of canola fields at nominal yields of 48
and 127 gallons of oil per acre, respectively [31].
Recently it has been a greater focus on improving the
management of water services by the use of microalgae,
but how much impact archived in practice? Current
many microalgae biofuel projects of Biofuel Digest da-
tabases are pilots and demonstrations as well as did not
use the some recommendations of the ASP program in
particular the use of wastewater for cost down [1,32].
The NASA presents its latest technology based on five
square kilometers of plastic bags would be used to pro-
duce 2.4 million gallons of algae oil per year (today drop
in the bucket compared to the 800 million gallons of oil
the U.S. consumes every day). The setup has been tested
in four nine-meter-long plastic bags and the researchers
demonstrated that they can grow enough algae to pro-
duce nearly 2000 gallons of fuel per acre per year—if the
weather cooperates. Those systems involve recycling
human waste, but technological design will face many
challenges addressed to industrial manufacturing [33].
Since 1950-1960 the U.S. Berkeley Energy Biosciences
Institute (EBI) focused on combining municipal waste-
water treatment with algae as the most plausible model
for biofuels production in the near term. Their final ana-
lysis includes five conceptual facilities for algae pond
biofuel production, four of them 250 acres in size and
one of 1,000 acres [30]. The estimated capital costs for a
250-acre biofuel production system emphasizing micro-
algae oil production are about $21 million, with annual
operating costs at around $1.5 million, to produce about
12,300 barrels of oil, giving a break-even price per barrel
of oil of $330 (based on an 8 percent capital charge).
Increasing the scale of the system to 1,000 acres reduced
the break-even price to about $240 per barrel. These
prices considered wastewater treatment credits, which
reduced costs about 20%. Although, a significant number
of combined algae wastewater treatment biofuels facili-
ties could be located in the US (over 8000 existing mu-
nicipal wastewater treatment ponds (several thousand
small (<10 hectare) and a few large scale (>100 hectare)),
their aggregate contribution to US liquid fuel resources
would be minor—at best a small fraction of 1% of total
U.S. demand [30]. EBI scientists made following conclu-
sion “that algal oil production will be neither quick nor
plentiful—10 years is a reasonable projection for re-
search, development and demonstration to allow a con-
clusion about the ability to achieve, at least for specific
locations, relatively low-cost algal biomass and oil pro-
duction, cultivate stable cultures under outdoor condi-
tions while achieving both high productivities and oil
content, bioflocculation for algae harvesting take in ac-
count including racewa pond for microalgae cultivation,
and extraction of algae oil by the use of hexane”.
What can we do if objectives are not met in proving or
if progress is too slow? Can we design and implement
new management models across the waste hierarchy,
value chains and life cycles of products and processes to
dramatically reduce waste generated in the world and
increase biomass for value added product? What should
be done for Global Sustainable development as open
burning and open dumping of waste pose the biggest
risks? What novel type of management, technological
and economic approaches, systems design, policy, and
stewardship can be used for effectively waste manage-
ment through mitigation of waste landfilling, pyrolyses,
methane and carbon manufacturing as well as increase
effectiveness of wastewater cleaning?
Our findings on industrial wastewater provide that
concentration of N and organic components of municipal
wastewater are not sufficient for rapid accumulation
combined with high yield of Chlorella biomass [1]. The
second bottleneck on the use of municipal wastewater for
manufacturing of microalgae biomass is limit the appli-
cation of such biomass in some niches of market as mu-
nicipal wastewater contains dissolved heavy metal which
microalgae accumulate. Other bottlenecks are that mu-
nicipal Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) biological
ponds do not ensure optimal way for microalgae biomass
producing as they are large, unmixed, and thus heteroge-
neous systems, where is no possibility to manage the
algae culture and effective harvesting of biomass [30]
and has big water flow. Based on our findings it offered
apply integrally cascading steps for wastewater man-
agement with taking in the account that urban settlements
which are also the main source of point source pollution
with taking in account that technological development
creates more consumer goods introducing new toxic and
hazardous chemicals in urban wastewater [1]. Some of
such synthetic chemicals that are found in wastewater -
pesticides and pharmaceuticals are endocrine disruptors
[4]. The negative effects of these chemicals extend be-
yond the exposed individual, particularly affecting fe-
tuses of exposed pregnant women and breastfed children.
So, the waste management met global problem—indirect
impact of on human health and environment numerous
endocrine disruptors including unused and unwanted
Open Access JSBS
pharmaceuticals in the rivers, lakes, streams and drinking
waters as the survey show that consumers tend to dispose
a large part of their unwanted, unused and expired phar-
maceuticals in garbage, toilets, and sinks. Therefore the
developed countries exploit programs to better manage
unused pharmaceuticals at health care facilities and
pharmaceutical take-back programs [1,25,34-36]. How-
ever these programs are able to reduce the levels of phar-
maceuticals entering in the environment only on 10% to
15% and pharmaceuticals can pass through sewage treat-
ment plants and be released to the environment as WTP
are, in general, not designed to remove such chemicals
[34,37]. What kind of capacity and what risk prevention
strategies are required to break the vicious circle? It is
necessary to identify important wastewater management
service provide for solving of this global problem and
adaptation measures are needed urgently. Theory offer
integrally apply cascading steps for wastewater manage-
ment which Step 1 include cleaning of industrial waste-
water or water solution of solid bio-waste contained high
concentration of organic or toxic components in special-
ized installation up to degree meeting the requirements
for its transfer to the municipal WTP and giving priority
to the transformation of obtained microalgae biomass for
producing of value added product; Step 2—use of post-
processing wastewater contained residual quantities of
the microalgae for improvement treatment of wastewater
by two following ways: 1) in biological ponds with
saunter accumulation of microalgae biomass with further
separation for value added product cycles (zero waste so-
lution and zero activated sludge), 2) in aeration oxidation
ponds of the industrial WTP (containing of high concen-
tration of organic and toxic components) for creating of
the symbiosis between bacteria of activated sludge and
microalgae which is general way for improving man-
agement (Figure 1) [1]. Simultaneously, in addition it
offer new cost-beneficial, ecologically safe game chang-
ing approach, which include destruction pharmaceuticals
in water and next cleaning of solution by the use of above
listed two Steps approach and giving priority to the
transformation of obtained microalgae biomass for pro-
ducing of value added products instead they expensive in-
cineration at temperature above 1200˚C in the special
furnaces in order to prevent the pollution of atmosphere
by toxic products of combustion (dioxins and chlorinated
dibenzofurans) as well as the stack effluence including
HCl, CO, CO2, NOx with conservation of fossil fuel etc.
[1]. This approach based on our findings of high level
cleaning of wastewaters of Yerevan Chemical Reagents,
Yerevan Vitamin, Charensavan Lysine plants, etc. which
content are above equivalent to the mixture of pharma-
ceuticals [1].
The question of what strategic approach we should
Figure 1. Vision on application of microalgae for purifica-
tion of industrial wastewater and gas effluent as well as
improvement municipal wastewater treatment in wastewa-
ter treatment plant.
take in order to pursue an international climate protection
policy. With landfill finally being truly on the way out,
there plan genuine opportunities for investment in value-
adding solutions through reducing origin of GHG emis-
sion and their resource uses for producing value added
products as well as mitigation of effluent gases. Rou-
ghly one-third of the edible parts of food produced for
human consumption gets lost or wasted globally, which
is about 1.3 billion ton per year [38]. Food waste is more
a problem in industrialized countries, most often caused
by both retailers and consumers throwing perfectly edible
foodstuffs into the trash. Per capita waste by consumers
is between 95 - 115 kg per year in Europe and North
America. Simultaneously, food systems contribute 19% -
29% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions, releasing
9800 - 16,900 MtCO2Eq in 2008. Incorporating thermal
treatment solutions for MSW material can help waste
management companies to turn waste material with lim-
ited recycling value into a valuable resource [1,23]. The
thermal processing as thermal hydrolysis collected and
watered municipal solid bio-waste (through the use of
effluent gases of thermal power station, cement plants,
etc.) may create additional raw material for manufactur-
ing of microalgae biomass aimed to producing of value
added products (mitigation of solid waste and origin for
GHG emissions) with minimizing of landfilling, methane
and carbon production GHG [1].
To help illustrate the potential for GHG reduction and
avoidance opportunities from materials management pra-
ctices with the use microalgae provide the following
scenario. According EPA estimation the U.S. GNG emis-
sions totaled 6702 MtCO2Eq and the provision of food
contributes 13% in 2011 [5,6,39]. Therefore the thermal
hydrolyses of this biowaste allow they use as raw mate-
rial for microalgae biotechnological manufacturing and
can decrease GHG emissions up to 871.3 MtCO2Eq. Ac-
cording to the European data the base-year emissions for
the EU-15 is equivalent to 4,265.5 and for EU-12-132.6
MtCO2Eq [7,40]. The EU food and drink value chain is
responsible for 17% of direct GHG emission and 28% of
Open Access JSBS
material resource use [41,42]. Therefore application of
their food scraps by offered technology will decrease
GHG emissions up to 747.7 MtCO2Eq. Canada GHG
emissions estimated to 702 MtCO2Eq and food scraps
share is 12.7% [14]. The offered technology can decrease
its GHG emissions up to 89.2 MtCO2Eq.
Additional decreasing of GHG emissions expected by
the use industrial wastewaters (food, biotechnological
etc.) as well as solid other biowastes, unused and expired
pharmaceuticals etc. for nutrition of microalgae as well
as the use of effluent gases for thermal hydrolyses of
solid biowaste, heating and nutrition of microalgae [1].
On other hand, traditional “waste” management repre-
sents 1 to 5% of US GHG emissions [6]. In the U.S.
wastewater treatment accounts for 16.7% of waste emis-
sions and 1.5% of N2O emissions. Therefore the use ther-
mal hydrolyses of active sludge can decrease GHG emis-
sions up to 335 MtCO2Eq.
Seeing CO2 as a raw material and a potential recycla-
ble resource with great value added potential is an excel-
lent example is ENN 110 Mt CO2/yr micro-algae pilot
plant in China with developed photobioreactors (PBRs)
systems for carbon sequestration aimed to the develop-
ment of algae for biofuels and bioproducts [43]. How-
ever this project economic advantage is unknown. On
other hand the exhaust steam and effluent gas may be
used for heating and aeration of microalgae suspension in
biotechnological pools and cultivation microalgae around
the year with including of north countries with mitigation
of Climate change [1]. In addition the cultivation of mi-
croalgae promote also restoration share of O2 due photo-
Management defined also as human action, including
design, to facilitate the production of useful outcomes
from a system and managers must understand where and
how they can implement offered policies and strategies
based on identified also new product candidates. Climate
change is a central external driver that affects both water
and energy for all uses directly; mitigation measures are
concentrated around the reduction of GNG and biofuel
manufacturing aimed also to replacing some imported oil
by indigenously produced fuels and diversifying sources.
Around the world, an urgent demand for alternative, sus-
tainable fuels and feedstock is growing. The most crucial
subject in the debate over the sustainability of the 1G
biofuels has intensified over the impact of biofuels on
food prices and the merits and structure of biofuels man-
dates in the U.S. and EU [1,24,25,42,44-47]. The use of
agriculture plants for manufacturing of 1G biofuel could
lead to competition for water resources, both in terms of
physical availability and access to water, agriculture land
availability and food needs will also limit biofuels pro-
duction based on crops. In Washington, consensus is
beginning to emerge that the biofuel RFS in 2013 could
actually result in higher net feeding costs for livestock
and poultry producers [47] and the EC announces new
plans to support domestic advanced biofuels [46]. The
EC has vision that all biofuels made from food crops and
which do not lead to substantial GNG savings (when
emissions from ILUC are included) should not be subsi-
dized in the period after 2020 and represent a further
“wildcard”, ensure growth in advances biofuels that
come from feedstock that is not in competition with food
crops. These biofuels also do not pose problems related
to increased food prices as they do not come from food
crops. In the interim period, the EC proposal aims at sta-
bilizing the consumption of 1 G biofuels. For the fulfill-
ment of the 10% renewable energy target, the Member
States can only count 5% biofuels from food crops.
What about the cellulosic biofuel? The EC identifies a
number of uncertainties associated with the available
models and impose sustainability criteria that biofuels
and bioliquids which include provisions to prevent the
conversion of areas of high biodiversity and carbon sinks
such as forest and wetlands [48]. The U.S. definition of
cellulosic biomass specifically excludes biomass from
federal forests [49]. In 2012 U.S. Beta Renewables (BP)
and the Russell cancelled their projects to build a com-
mercial-scale wood biomass power plant based on eco-
nomical grounds as well as there are protests against their
air pollution and the impact that plant would have on the
forest [50-52]. Cellulosic biofuel have some potential,
but there are significant hurdles to overcome before
competitiveness and planned volume is reached [54].
Why are algae so exciting from a renewable energy
standpoint? For a summary number application lines and
the following reasons [1]: 1) Algae can be processed into
biodiesel, bioetanol, jet fuel, and biocrude; 2) Microalgae
water consumption of manufacturing is over 10 times as
low compared agricultural plants; 3) Algae are generally
more efficient converting solar energy due to their simple
cellular ultrastructure and immediate access to life sup-
port elements such as water, CO2 and nutrients, a higher
photon conversion efficiency (approximately 3% - 8%
against 0.5% for terrestrial plants which represents higher
biomass yields per hectare, according to U.S. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NPEL) algae can pro-
duce at least 10 - 100 times more biomass per hectare in
comparison with land plants as well as the oil yields in
litters/hectare/year for soybeans are 400, for palm oil to
6000 and microalgae—a minimum of 60,000; 4) Despite
several decades of experience in monitoring bioreactors
and refining cell culture operations, the production of
safe, pure and potent biologics remains a tricky business.
In compassion with other microorganisms and plants the
microalgae cultivation is more wasteless, ecologically
pure, energy and resource saving process. Algae use nu-
trients more efficiently than land plants. Unlike tradi-
Open Access JSBS
tional oilseed plants, the amount of pesticide and fertil-
izer use is virtually eliminated, resulting in less waste
and pollution; 5) Microalgae have uniform cell structures
with no bark, stems, branches or leaves, allowing easier
extraction of products and higher utilization of microal-
gae cells and their biomass production systems can be
easily adapted to various levels of operational and tech-
nological skills and the cellular uniformity of microalgae
makes it practical to manipulate and control growing
conditions for the optimization of cell properties. Micro-
algae originated value-added co-products or by-products
(e.g. proteins, polysaccharides, pigments, biopolymers,
animal feed, fertilizers, etc.; 6) Algae are excellent biore-
mediation agents—they have the potential to absorb mas-
sive amounts of CO2 up to 450 tons per acre when grown
commercially or over two billion tones of CO2 could be
captured by growing algae on the space equivalent to the
entire US soybean crop with mitigation of Climate change.
At last years the validity of microalgae approach con-
firms increasing of quantity of the Microalgae-to-Biofuel
projects according to the Biofuel Digest databases [32].
In the Shandong Province of the China under the joint
venture of the Australia’s Algae. Tec and Shandong
Kerui Group Holding Ltd was funded project for the
construction of a 250-module algae biofuels facility
which will be the first of its size and type in the world
with produce approximately 33 million liters of algae
derived transport oil and approximately 33,000 tones of
biomass per annum at a combined value of over $40 mil-
lion, and capture 137,000 tones of waste carbon dioxide
[55]. This project will be additional contribution of other
foreign companies in development of microalgae pro-
ducing in the China [1].
Biotechnology research goals include finding ways to
increase the reproductive rate, improve metabolism of
inputs, and enhance the production of desired oils,
fuel-grade alcohols, proteins and other useful compo-
nents. Anticipated approaches include improvement of
strains through mutation treatment by a physical method
(such as ultraviolet irradiation) or a chemical method
(such as the use of chemicals). Currently a different and
complimentary approach to increase productivity of mi-
croalgae is via genetic and metabolic engineering [1,30,
56,57]. Genetic engineering techniques are employed to
enable algae to more predictably produce desired lipids
for biofuels, alcohols, proteins, enzymes and other mole-
cules, or carbohydrate—rich biomass for bioprocessing.
Since microalgae may be dispersed by wind or by fauna,
open pond systems can introduce algal strains to the sur-
rounding environment. For genetic engineering strain
pond systems covered by thin plastic films and combina-
tion closed/open systems are being developed to control
these factors [30].
A process for production of biofuels from algae can
include also cultivating an oil-producing algae in tank
and converting the algal oil to biodiesel by promoting
sequential photoautotrophic and heterotrophic growth
[58]. Genifuel Corporation patents offered to cultivate
microalgae in a sugar feed for the production of ethanol
by harvesting starch-accumulating filament-forming or
colony-forming algae, initiating cellular decay of the
biomass in a dark and anaerobic environment, fermenting
the biomass in the presence of a yeast, and the isolating
the ethanol produced [59]. Solazyme move to manufac-
ture microalgae oils at a cost below $1000 per metric ton
or $0.91 per litter if produced by using the same stan-
dard industrial fermenters (128,000-liter) in commercial
plant [60].
Economic analysis is an essential evaluation for con-
sidering feasibility and viability of large-scale, photo-au-
totrophic algae-based, biofuel production. The updated
cost comparison based on a normalized set of input as-
sumptions was found to greatly reduce economic vari-
ability, resulting in algal oil production costs ranging
from $10.87 gallon1 to $13.32 gallon1 [61]. Simultane-
ously, it was shown that the cost of lipid production to
achieve a 10% return was determined to be $8.52/gal for
open ponds and $18.10/gal for PBRs [62].
However the development of microalgae-to-biofuels is
still in its infancy, there are still many conflicting results
and knowledge gaps related to a coupled wastewater
treatment and algae cultivation system as well as nowa-
days studies have demonstrated the feasibility of a cou-
pled system for the treatment of wastewater and cultiva-
tion of algae for biofuels only on a small scale and addi-
tional lab scale testing is needed to determine the most
efficient reactor design and operation methods when us-
ing wastewater as a water and nutrient source for algae
cultivation as well as issues related to high energy use
and cost in PBR and low productivity in open 40 ponds
must be resolved in order to determine which system is
the most effective as this technology develops in order to
effectively couple the algae cultivation [63]. Major chal-
lenges to the implementation of an integrated system
include the large-scale production of algae and the har-
vesting of microalgae in a way that allows for down-
stream processing to produce biofuels and other bio-
products of value according to the patent survey [64] and
report on treating municipal and industrial wastewater by
using algae which provided detailed descriptions and
results for nearly 50 research attempts in the field of al-
gae-based industrial wastewater treatment and lists the
companies in algae-based wastewater treatment systems
and their profiles [65]. Therefore further investigation
and development of large-scale production and harvest-
ing methods of microalgae for biofuels and bio-products
are necessary regard to large-scale production of algae
include nutrient supply and recycling, gas transfer and
exchange, photosynthetically active radiation, delivery,
Open Access JSBS
culture integrity, environment control, land and water
availability, and harvesting [64].
Simultaneously, among the different types of policy
tools available, incentives most effectively when linked
to production rather than investment [53]. The full proc-
essing of microalgae biomass resides decrease cost of
manufacturing. Therefore Theory provide cost effective
application of microalgae biomass with building product
and technology roadmaps, manufacturing of value added
products—biofuel, biopharmaceuticals, food, feed and
perfumery additives [1]. On other hand in order to
achieve approval, microalgae products originated by the
use of some waste should satisfy the Safety and Interna-
tional Standards regulating production with avoiding in
any case the introduction of heavy metals or cumulative
contaminants that could pass to the human chain con-
sumption. Algae Biomass Organisation Technical Stan-
dards Committee is tasked on developing and advocating
algal industry standards and best practices by providing a
framework for evaluating industrial inputs including land,
materials, and manpower; outputs including products and
waste; and processes and regulations with the industry
will interface with the outside world with creating a
source of reliable information that can be used by exist-
ing standards setting agencies to adapt existing product,
testing, and manufacturing standards to the all this new
industry. In most cases their clarifications written into
existing standards that account for the particular charac-
teristics of the algae industry as a product source [66].
One of obstacle for the implementation product to market
is the costs for approval. According to the Algae feed the
most relevant entity establishing feed safety interna-
tional standards is IFIF—International Feed Industry
Federation [67]. The FAO responses on test of fish algae
supplement based on standard control diet [68]. Other
approach is establishing of separate specific standards for
each algal product. In 1970s the former USSR was de-
veloped All-Union State Standard 22455-77 of the algae
feeding meal or groats and All-Union State Standards
64-17-03-87 and 64-17-03-89 for perfumery additives
which adopted for CIS countries [1]. Megatro seaweed
powder product use China standard Specification Q/
02MYZ008-2006 [69]. Such approach on development
specific standards and Technical Specifications seems as
more preferable, can viewed as a more effective means
of ensuring that products meet the essential health and
safety requirements and provides safeguards against un-
fair competition, fraud in case of market update of poor
quality products from producers and must be applied for
strengthen standardisation addressed to speedily intro-
duction of achievements in industry.
3. Conclusions
We cannot afford to dismiss any of above listed ap-
proaches prematurely. However the possibility of waste-
water and watered municipal solid bio-waste use as raw
material for manufacturing of microalgae provides that
there it has not deficit of raw materials and the process
can be implemented on the lands, which is no applicable
for agriculture and tanks to transform the concept of
waste from one of resource abandonment to a model
which all elements along the waste value chain create
economic, societal and/or environmental value. The re-
cycling of waste materials by the use of microalgae, and
thus the minimizing of the generation of waste are a ba-
sic concept which must be implemented in order to meet
the new demands of sustainable development. Climate
change is not only a major threat, but—in terms of tech-
nology—it is a challenge that can give birth to business
opportunities based on innovations. Offered sustainable
concept and cost effective plan of actions grounded some
millions years of the Nature experience and latest find-
ings, are convenient for policymakers, do not require
legislative framework which will provide a number of
tax grants and support for renewable energy producers,
directly contribute to the success of environmental policy
and the transition process toward bioeconomy and in-
clude global sustainable solution for wastewater man-
agement and restoration of water resource, mitigation
solid waste and climate change, the improvement in hu-
man health through developing cost effective microalgae
technologies which increase accessibility of biomass
addressed to creation of market opportunities to follow-
ing competitive products: biofuel, microalgae feed addi-
tives (become the best choice for improvement of quality
of functional food and cost effective producing animal,
poultry and fish with increasing their resistance to dis-
eases), food and perfumery additives and biopharmaceu-
ticals [1]. Our pilot business plan confirms economic
viability that the use of microalgae in waste management
can decrease cost of feedstock for manufacturing of
competitive value added products [1]. Microalgae was
the key tool for life development on the earth; at present,
algae produce approximately 50% - 70% of the atmos-
pheric oxygen and is natural cleaner of global water re-
source. It is an approved choice of nature. So, there is
hope for our offered solutions. Our strategy believes that
the use of microalgae will be our adequate answer ad-
dressing to unsustainable technological improvements
and climate change, thus leading to resolution of global
tasks facing the world community through finding of
optimum ways for solution of these problems on how to
receive raw material for sustainable production with
fundamental change of our future.
Fine-tuning a strategy for improving of environment
protection depends on many factors, but one thing is
clear: Governance, Funds and Companies generally must
see the advantage of investing in biotechnological
Open Access JSBS
game-changing approach, to improve these processes and
increasingly look at such investments as economically,
environmentally and socially effective impacts. Theory
vision will be needed for the development of Global Life
Conserve Industry-led Platforms. Who gains from driving
forward our vision? The creating of the dominant gap
from non efficient protection of environment to its culti-
vation in a large scale by the use of microalgae will be
able to use the windows of opportunity formed by the
landscape change toward new design & build biological
system, combined with the prospect of the improvement
manufacturing of value added product and will serve
future sustainable development of life. The difficulties in
realizing all in the time frame of our analysis do not jus-
tify inaction or delay, which would raise the long-term
economic, security and environmental cost.
[1] A. B. Avagyan, “Theory of Global Sustainable Develop-
ment Based on including of Microalgae in Bio and Indus-
trial Cycles. New Design and Building of Biological
Sytem,” 2013.
[2] EPA, “Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S.: Facts and Fig-
ures,” 2011.
[3] EPA, “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and
Disposal in the U.S.: Facts and Figures for 2010,” 2012.
[4] UN, “World Water Development Report (WWDR4),”
UNESKO, 2012.
[5] EPA, “National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data,” 2011.
[6] EPA, “Climate and Waste Statistics,” 2013.
[7] EEA, “Greenhouse gas Emission Trends and Projections
in Europe,” 2012.
[8] Pike Research, “Waste-to-Energy Technology Markets,”
[9] B. Messenger, “European Waste to Energy Technology
Market to Hit $5 Billion,” Waste Management Wo rld, 2013.
[10] EC, “Green Paper on the Management of Bio-Waste in
the European Union. Climate Change and Food Systems,”
COM(2008) 811 final. {SEC(2008) 2936} (2008), 2008.
[11] Confederation of European waste-to-energy plants, “Re-
cycling and Waste-to-Energy in Combination for Sus-
tainable Waste Management,” 2012.
Energy Report III. 2012.
[12] J. Ewald, “Carbon Dioxide at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Ob-
servatory Reaches New Milestone: Tops 400 ppm,” 2013.
[13] EPA, “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data,” 2005.
[14] Emergent Waste Solutions, “Mergent Waste Solutions
Deploys the Unique APS® Technology, Capable of An-
swering the Global Challenge of Waste Disposal,” 2013.
[15] A. Bennett, “Wastewater Treatment and Energy Produc-
tion,” Filtration & Separation, Vol. 44, No. 10, 2007, pp.
[16] Solid Waste Association of North America, “Waste-to-
Energy Facilities Provide Significant Economic Bene-
fits,” 2012.
[17] D. Hoornweg, “Talking Heads. Megacities,” Waste
Management World, 2012, p. 66.
[18] SBI Bulletin, “Waste to Energy Markets to Grow 11.2%
Annually Through 2021,” 2012.
[19] Environmental Expert, “2nd Annual Waste Conversion
Congress East Coast 2012,” 2012.
[20] D. Kiernan, “Waste to Biofuels Set for Growth But Indus-
try Must Remain Realistic.” Waste Management World,
[21] V. R. Surisetty, J. Kozinski and A. K. Dalai, “Biomass,
Availability in Canada, and Gasification: An Overview,”
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2012,
pp. 73-85.
[22] P. French, M. Cuddeford and J. A. Cody, “Waste to En-
Open Access JSBS
ergy: Investment Landscape. Renewable Waste Markets
Report 2012-13,” 2012.
[23] M. Chrusciak, “European Waste to Energy Plant Market,”
[24] A. B. Avagyan, “A Contribution to Global Sustainable
Development: Inclusion of Microalgae and Their Biomass
in Production and Bio Cycles”, Clean Technologies and
Environmental Policy, Vol.10, No. 4, 2008, pp. 313-317.
[25] A. B. Avagyan, “New Design & Build Biological System
Addressed to Global Environment Management and Sus-
tainable Development through including Microalgae and
Their Biomass in Production and Bio Cycles,” Journal of
Environmental Protection, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2010, pp.
[26] International Renewable Energy Agency, “Evaluating
Policies in Support of the Deployment of Renewable
Power,” Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2012.
[27] P. J. van der Aar, “Biofuels: Implications for the Feed
Industry,” In: J. Doppenberg and Piet van der Aar, Eds.,
Biofuels, 2007, pp. 11-13,
[28] M. Briggs, “Widescale Biodiesel Production from Al-
gae,” University of New Hampshire, 2004.
[29] J. Sheehan, T. Dunahay, J. Benemann and P. Roessler, “A
Look Back at the US Department of Energy’s Aquatic
Species Program: Biodiesel from Algae,” 2006.
[30] T. J. Lundquist, I. C. Woertz, N. W. T. Quinn and J. R.
Benemann, “A Realistic Technology and Engineering
Assessment of Algae Biofuel Production,” Berkeley: Re-
port of Energy Biosciences Institute University of Cali-
fornia, 2010.
[31] Oilgae, “Energy from Algae, products, market, processes,
strategies. Algae Oil Information,” Comprehensive Re-
port, 2008.
[32] J. Lane, “Advanced Biofuels Tracking Databases,” Biofu-
els Digest, 2010-2012.
[33] K. Bullis, “NASA Wants to Launch Floating Algae
Farms,” Technology Review, MIT, 2012.
[34] E. Gagnon, “Pharmaceutical Disposal Programs for the
Public: A Canadian Perspective,” Health Canada Envi-
ronmental Impact Initiative, 2009.
[35] EU “Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Commu-
nity Code Relating to Medicinal Products for Human
Use,” Official Journal L 311, pp. 67
[36] N. Savransky, “Pharmaceuticals in the Water. A Look at
an Emerging and Pressing Issue,” 2012.
[37] J. Gunderson, “Water Treatment: Chemical and Pharma-
ceutical Industries,” Water World, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2012, p. 5.
[38] J. Gustavsson, C. Cederberg, U. Sonesson and R. O. A.
Meybeck, “Global Food Losses and Food Waste Extent,
Causes and Prevention,” FAO, 2011.
[39] EPA, “Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emis-
sions through Materials and Land Management Prac-
tices,” 2009.
[40] EEA, “Annual European Union Greenhouse Gas Inven-
tory 1990-…2011 and Inventory Report 2013,” 2013.
[41] Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising Waste Pre-
vention Strategies, “About Food Waste,” 2013.
[42] International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook,”
OECD/IEA, Paris, 2006.
[43] G. Sun, “US-China Cooperative Work on Carbon Capture,
Use and Storage,” US-China Energy Centre, 2012.
Open Access JSBS
Open Access JSBS
[44] OPEC, “World Oil Outlook,” 2008.
[45] R. Troustle, D. Marti, S. Rosen and P. Westcott, “Why
Have Food Commodity Prices Risen Again?” USDA, 2012.
[46] EC, “Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC),” MEMO/12/787,
[47] J. Lane, “RFS Waiver Could Raise Feed Costs for Live-
stock, Dairy Producers: New Study,” Biofuels Digest, 2012.
[48] EC, “Biofuels: Commission Adopts Report on Indirect
Land Use Change,” Europe Press Releases, 2010.
[49] K. Bracmor, R. Schnepf, M. Stubbs and B. D. Yacobucci,
“Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Con-
gress,” 2010.
[50] J. Lane, “The October Surprise: BP Cancels Plans for US
Cellulosic Ethanol Plant,” Biofuels Digest, 2012.
[51] M. Cichon, “Russell Biomass Plant Cancelled: The Start
of an Industry Trend?” Renewable Energy World, 2012.
[52] T. LaBorde, “Russell Biomass Power Plant Partners Can-
cel Project,” Mass Live, 2012.
[53] U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Biofuels Issues
and Trends,” U.S. Department of Energy, 2012.
[54] International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook,”
OECD/IEA, Paris, 2011, 660p.
[55] Admin, “Algae.Tec, Shandong Kerui for Algal Biofuels
JV in China,” Biofuel Dighest, 2012.
[56] Y. Chisti, “Biodiesel from Microalgae Beats Bioethanol,”
Trends in Biotechnology, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2008, pp. 126-
[57] R. Radakovits, R. E. Jinkerson, A. Darzins and M. C.
Posewitz, “Genetic Engineering of Algae for Enhanced
Biofuel Production,” Eukaryotic Cell, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2010,
[58] SciTech Patent Art Patent Tracker, “Patenting Trends in
Algae Based Biofuels,” Hyderabad, 2013.
[59] Genifuel Corporation, “Integrated Processes and Systems
for Production of Biofuels Using Algae,” US patent No.
7977076 B2, 2011.
UYmoMs3MPbrzgPgO#v=onepage&q&f=false; “Process
of Producing Oil from Algae Using Biological Ruptur-
ing,” US Patent No. US20120285077 A1, 2012.
[60] J. Lane, “Solazyme Files Its Expected IPO, But in Its S-1
Are Unexpected Progress on Costs, Capacity, and a Surge
of Offtake Orders; But Can the Company Make Oil Fast
Enough to Meet the Demand and Capture All the Oppor-
tunities?” Biofiel Dighest, 2011.
[61] A. Sun, R. Davis, M. Starbuck, A. Ben-Amotz, R. Pate
and P. T. Pienkos, “Comparative Cost Analysis of Algal
Oil Production for Biofuels,” Energy, Vol. 36, No. 8,
2011, pp. 5169-5179.
[62] R. Davis, A. Aden and P. T. Pienko, “Techno-Economic
Analysis of Autotrophic Microalgae for Fuel Production,”
Applied Energy, Vol. 88, No. 10, 2011, pp. 3524-3531.
[63] M. C. Rothermel, “Coupling the Wastewater Treatment
Process with an Algal Photobioreactor for Nutrient Re-
moval and Renewable Resource Production,” University
of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 2011.
[64] L. Christenson and R. Sims, “Production and Harvesting
of Microalgae for Wastewater Treatment, Biofuels, and
Bioproducts,” Biotechnology Advances, Vol. 29, No. 6,
2011, pp. 686-702.
[65] Oligae, “Oligae Guide to Algae-Based Waste- water
Treatment,” 2010.
[66] ABO, “Algae Industry Minimum Descriptive Language:
Guidance to Evaluate Life Cycle Inputs and Outputs,”
Technical Standards Committee, 2012.
[67] Algae4feed, 2013.
[68] FAO, “Algae,” FAO, 2013.
[69] Megatro, 2013.