Oilgae Club - an Online Community for Algae Fuel Enthusiasts Worldwide.

Veronica's Blog

An interesting site to buy algae for your experiements

http://algae-planet.com/algae.html


I found many univ students from different parts of the world are looking to get samples for their experiments.

here is one source.

Fri December 10 2010 12:03:12 AM by Veronica 34 algae samples

AO Algae innovation summit

Program
Sunday (December 12)

18:00 Informal Welcome Reception (Together with Tsukuba 3E Forum reception)


Monday (December 13)



Session 1: Opening Remarks






✿Welcome to the First AO Algae Innovation Summit-Concept and Overview of the Summit
8:30 Speaker: Isao Inouye, University of Tsukuba
✿Opening addresses
8:40 Shogo Murakami, Council for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP), The Cabinet Office, Japan
8:45 Ilsub Baek, Deputy Director, Future Fundamental Technology Division, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Korea
8:50 Kasemsri Homchean, Governor, Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research (TISTR), Thailand
8:55 Christopher Wood, Trade Commissioner & Consul, Austrade Sapporo, Australia
✿Tsukuba Biomass Town Initiative: Activity and Future Plan
9:00 Speaker: Yoshito Yuyama, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO)

9:25 Coffee Break & Photo



Session 2: Policy for Algae Innovation



Governmental Policies and Investments (Chairs: J.C. Yang and Ji-won Yang)
✿Japan policy
9:55 Toshihide Fukui, MEXT
10:10 “Algal Biomass in the agricultural policy of Japan” Takashi Nozu, MAFF
10:25 Shoji Watanabe, Director, METI
✿Korea policy
10:40 “ROK Policy for Bio-fuel, bio-materials and algae” Ku Yong Jung, MEST
✿China policy
11:55 “Will Algae play a critical role in the Low Carbon Cycle in China?” Li Renhui, The Chinese Academy of Sciences
✿Thailand policy
11:10 “Alternative Energy Policy and Biofuel Development in Thailand” Suthep Liumsirijarern, DEDE
11:25 “Over Views About Algae Project in Thailand” Praphon Wongtarua, DEDE
✿Australia policy
11:40 “Biofuel Research and Development in Australia” Christopher Wood, Austrade Sapporo
✿New Zealand policy
11:55 “The New Zealand Bio-Energy Landscape; Policy and Research” Mike Packer, Cawthron Institute
✿USA policy
12:10 “Overview of US Algae Consortia” José A. Olivares, LANL
✿EU policy
12:25 “European ánd Dutch policy and support on algae and seaweed” André de Boer, Ministry of Economic Affairs
12:40 Panel Discussions on Government Policy for Development of Algal Industry, Science and

Technology (Chair: Aparat Mahakhant; Panelists: Shogo Murakami, Toshihide Fukui, Ilsub Baek, Kasemsri Homchean, Christopher Wood, Mike Packer, Joyce C. Yang and André de Boer)



13:25 Lunch
Session 3: Industrial Technology
Introductions of Japanese Industrial Activities (Chair: Kinya Atsumi)
✿Japan Industries
14:25 “Biofuels from microalgae. DENSO’s approach” Hiroaki Fukuda, DENSO CORPORATION
14:47 “Development plan on biofuel system from microalgae manufactured by using symbiosis and assimilation” Koji Fuchigami, JFE Engineering Co. Ltd.
15:09 “Automotive Fuel and Micro Algae Oil” Susumu Nagano, Toyota Central R&D LABS., INC.
15:31 Coffee Break
Industries fom Asia, Oceania, USA and The Netherlands (Chair: Kunn Kangvansaichol)
✿Korea Industry
15:51 “New Technology Application of Algal Harvesting System to Mitigate Blue-green Algae Bloom in Reservoir, Korea” Jae-Ki Shin, Korea Water Resources Corporation
✿Thailand Industry
16:13 “Algae Biofuel Technology R&D Activity in Thailand” Ratanavalee Inochanon, PTT Public Company Ltd.
✿Australia Industry
16:35 “An introduction to Australia’s first algal biofuels technology development Company” Gerald Barker, General Manager, SQC Pty Ltd.
✿USA Industry
16:57 “Technology for large scale micro algae production” Joel Butler, Solix Biofuels
✿The Netherlands Industry
17:19 “Micro-algae and water purification” Nicole Dijkma, AquaPhyto BV
17:31-18:15 Panel Discussion on Algal Business Incubation (Chair: Akira Tanaka; Panelist: Kinya Atsumi, Jae-Ki Shin, Ratanavalee Inochanon, Gerald Barker, Joel Butler, Nicole Dijkma, and Makoto M Watanabe)
18:30- Dinner Party Commemorating AOAI Summit at Daigakukaikan Cafeteria
(Free: the invitees and the members of Algae Industry Incubation Consortium / 3,000JPY:others)

18:30- Business Meeting ( for International Organizing Committee Members)





Tuesday ( December 14)
Session 4: Academic R&D
✿Progress Report of CREST Project on Oil Producing Green Alga Botryoccocus
8:30 “Research project on sophisticated utilization of alkaliphilic strains of oil-producing green alga, Botryococcus” Makoto M Watanabe, University of Tsukuba, Japan
Contributed Paper Session 1
✿Track 1: Isolation, Screening, Cultivation and Characterization of Algae as Next Generation Feedstock (Chair: Masanobu Kawachi)
9:00 “R&D on algae as new energy feedstock at TISTR” Aparat Mahakhant, TISTR, Thailand
9:15 “Identification of high-lipid producers for biodiesel production from forty-three green algal isolates in China” Lirong Song, The Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
9:30 “Algae bio-fuels: a novel photosynthesis-fermentation approach” Qingyu Wu, Tsinghua University, China
9:45 “A highly squalene-accumulating strain of thraustochytrid Aurantiochytrium sp.” Kunimitsu Kaya, University of Tsukuba, Japan,
10:00 “Molecular and chemical differences reflected by physiological divergence between Arthrospira and freshwater Arthrospira-like cyanobacteria---implication for algal selection and isolation for further exploration” Renhui Li, The Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
10:15 “Overcoming biological constraints to enable the exploitation of microalgae for biofuels” John G. Day, Scottish Association for Marine Science, UK
10:30 “The Goettingen Culture Collection of Algae (SAG) - a platform for exploring and conservation of algal diversity” Thomas Friedl, University of Goettingen, Germany
10:45 “Microalgae for biofuels in Australia: strain selection for biodiesel and other products” Susan Blackburn, CSIRO, Australia
✿Track 2: Physiology, Molecular Biology and Genetic Improvement of Algae (Chair: Qingyu Wu)
11:00 “Dynamic response of the transcriptome of microalgae to environmental stress” Eon Seon Jin, Hanyang University, Korea
11:15 “Importace of a cosmopolitan marine unicellular calcifying alga, Emiliania huxleyi” Yoshihiro Shiraiwa, University of Tsukuba, Japan
11:30 “Replacement of α-tocopherol by β-tocopherol enhances resistance tophoto-oxidative stress in a xanthophyll-deficient strain of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii” Anchalee Sirikhachornkit, Kasetsart University, Thailand

11:45 “Modes of liquid hydrocarbon biosynthesis in Botryococcus braunii revealed by gene expression analysis” Masato Baba, University of Tsukuba, Japan



✿Poster session (Tracks 1-5)
12:00 Odd Numbers

13:00 Even Numbers




Contributed Paper Session 2
✿Track 3: Chemistry and Bioprocessing of Algae for Production of Fuels and Products
(Chair: Wichien Yongmanichai)
14:00 “Harvest of Scenedesmus sp. with bioflocculant and reuse of culture medium for subsequent high-density cultures” Hee-Mock Oh, KRIBB, Korea
14:15 “Study of increasing lipid production from green alga, Botryococcus braunii” Suneerat Ruangsomboon, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Thailand
14:30 “Critical issues affecting the renewability of microalgae derived biodiesel using the in-situ transesterification process” Ehiaze Ehimen, University of Otago, New Zealand
14:45 “Microbial simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of Laminaria japonica for the production of organic acids” Hong Soon Rhee, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Korea
✿Track 4: Wastewater Treatment and Algal Biomass Production (Chair: Hee-Mock Oh)
15:00 “Phytoplankton community and the purification effect of mangrove in the mangrove plantation-aquaculture coupling systems in the pearl river E” Yu Liu, Sun Yat-Sen University, China
15:15 “Potential energy production from algae in marginal land in China” Guo Yu Qiu, Peking University, China
✿Track 5: Large-Scale Algal Biomass Production-Design, Infrastructure and Practice
(Chair: Hee-Mock Oh)
15:30 “Will marine microalgae rescue the energy crisis and global warming?” Choul-Gyun Lee, Inha Univeristy, Korea
15:45 “Business evaluation of an oil production system with the green micro-algae Botryococcus” Makoto Shiho, University of Tsukuba, Japan
16:00 “Introduction of Advanced Biomass R&D Center (ABC)” Ji-Won Yang, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Korea

16:15 “Drivers and Constraints in Industrial Point-Source Carbon Dioxide Recycling Via Algal Biomass” Mike Packer, Cawthron Institute, New Zealand



16:30 Coffee Break
Session 5: Conclusion and Statement of the Summit
17:00 Panel Discussion by IOC Member on Future Collaboration between Asia Oceania Nations for Algal policy, Industry, Science and Technology (Chair: Isao Inouye)
17:45 Statement (Isao Inouye)
18:00 Closing
18:30- Banquet at Nishoku (Complimentary)

Thu December 09 2010 11:57:30 PM by Veronica algae innovation summit

Algae growing - GHG footprint more than corn for ethanol ?!?!

My most recent piece on Alternet: an interview with Jim Thomas of ETC Group, who has just published a new report on the emerging bioeconomy.
? Jeff C.
The quest to replace black fuels with green fuels is just another resource and land grab by big corporations.
While there is no doubt that we need to kick our fossil fuel addiction, how we move to cleaner and greener ways of living is still under debate. 

Our first attempts at using biofuels, particularly ethanol, have been largely disastrous. But what about other plant-based fuel options?A new report from the ETC Group provides good reason to be suspicious ? especially considering that the companies behind the new 'green' fuels are BP, Shell, DuPont, Chevron, Syngenta, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill and Monsanto (to name a few): the same players that brought us the petroleum economy, the food crisis and climate chaos.
Jim Thomas and his colleagues in ETC Group are consistently at the cutting edge of watch-dogging emerging technologies, from GMOs and nanotechnology to geoengineering and synthetic biology. 
Their critique tends to combine concern over unleashing potentially dangerous elements with a social analysis that recognizes the dynamics of power behind these technologies ? who stands to benefit and who stands to lose. I spoke with Thomas about the publication of a new report by ETC Group.
Jeff Conant: You and your colleagues at ETC Group are strong advocates of taking what I would call a reasoned approach to the deployment of new technologies; you?re best known for having led the charge for a global ban on the infamous Terminator Seed, and you?ve just had a tremendous victory by winning a global moratorium on geoengineering experiments (see last week?s piece on AlterNet).
 Now, you?re releasing a report on another impending technological concern: synthetic biology.
Jim Thomas: The report is called 'The New Biomassters: Synthetic Biology and the Next Assault on Biodiversity and Livelihoods.'
 It?s an expos? and argument against the new bioeconomy  most OECD countries are now promoting as the next (supposedly green) wave of industrial production ? switching from fossil fuels to biological material (biomass) as the key feedstock of the economy.
 As such, it encompasses biofuels, burning biomass for electricity, and using biomass for chemicals, plastics and other materials formerly sourced from petroleum.
JC: But isn?t this exactly what a lot of enviros want: an end to fossil fuel development in favor of renewables? What?s the concern?
JT: The bioeconomy reimagines plant life as just another source of carbon ? a sort of above-ground oil reserve that can fuel the same economy we already have with just a little technological tweaking ? moving from black fossil carbon to green living carbon. 
While that shift in carbon feedstocks may be dressed up as a green 'switch,' it is in fact a red-hot imperial resource grab ? on plants, land, genes and the entire 'primary production' of the planet. 
Just as grabbing fossil carbon has displaced communities and fueled wars, so those who will suffer in the development of this new bioeconomy will be the traditional communities of the old bioeconomy. 
Another concern is, there is simply not enough biomass to make such a transition ? indeed, industrial civilization is already taking too much.
There's an assumption embedded in the UNFCCC and other climate policy that biomass is a carbon neutral energy source. 
That is wrong, dangerously so. Another mistaken assumptions is that so-called next-generation biofuels (cellulosic fuels or algae fuels) are better than the disastrous first-generation biofuels.
JC: Disastrous, in that the sudden rise in investment in biofuels led to an equally sudden displacement of food crops and helped cause the food crisis that began in 2008?
JT: That, yes; but beyond that, the point that biofuels were shown to have an equal or greater net carbon footprint than fossil fuels. I don't think most people realize that when you burn biomass for energy you can release more CO2 than coal. 
Of course its assumed that CO2 will get fixed again by theoretical replacement plants over some unspecified time period, but in the process there are massive unaccounted-for greenhouse gas emissions from disturbing soils, use of fertilizers and pesticides, harvesting, transport, refining, and consuming ? it can only be called disastrous.
JC: What about algal fuels? Aren?t they a way out of the biofuel dilemmas?
JT: Not really. Lifecycle analysis shows that the usual way of growing algae for fuel has a bigger greenhouse footprint than corn ethanol because there is no soil, so you need to pump a lot of fertilizer into the water. Fertilizer production is a massive energy user. Then there is the problem of land. Algae production has to be spread out thinly because sunlight doesn?t penetrate very far into algae. So you?re talking about facilities the size of San Francisco. And then there?s massive water use and the risks of invasive species and the fact that to make algae efficient you will probably need to genetically engineer it?and so on.
JC: And the other next-generation biofuels?
JT: With so-called next-generation biofuels we're talking about expanding monoculture industrial plantations, either harvesting industrial crop wastes like rice straw and corn stover ? rather than allowing them to replenish soil nutrients ? or expanding tree plantations on so-called marginal lands where people actually live and subsist.
 Already, industrial agriculture may account for more than half of global greenhouse gas emissions. Relying further on industrial ag to meet energy demands is hardly an improvement on the fossil economy.
JC: Yet, the Obama administration has just promised increasing investment in biofuels. You say in the report that the first rush to promote renewable fuels and other supposedly green alternatives was only a visible tip of a much deeper transition and trajectory in industrial policy,which you call the bioeconomy. What do you mean by this?
JT: When OECD nations and corporate lobby groups talk about the bioeconomy they?re describing a switch from industrial feedstocks to biomass across several areas ? fuels, chemicals, electricity, and beyond ? everything from corn ethanol to bioplastics to biomass incineration for electricity. You know, if turning food into fuel is an unacceptable trade-off, then turning food into plastic bags is even worse. To enable this transition, they' ll need to secure stocks of biomass in the same way they previously secured oil fields and gas pipelines. For me the shocking thing was to discover that fully 86 percent of the world?s biomass is in the tropics ? the global South ? where it?s already sustaining the livelihoods, cultures, and basic needs of most of the world's people. 
So a switch to biomass at any meaningful scale necessarily involves a corporate grab on the land and resources of the South. As with any previous industrial transition, what?s behind this is not high ideals, but the calculated interest of the corporate bottom line.
JC: Who?s behind the bioeconomy?
JT: We call them the new biomassters ? but they aren?t really new. BP, Shell, DuPont, Chevron, Syngenta, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Monsanto. In other words, those driving the new bioeconomy are the same inequitable and polluting industries that captain the petro-economy. 
There?s virtually no question that they regard the dash to biomass as a means of retooling the existing global economy without changing underlying patterns of consumption and production.
 If you calculate the combined worth of all the sectors that have vested interests in a new bioeconomy ? energy, chemicals, agribusiness, forestry and finance corporations ? you find they have a combined total worth of $17 trillion. That?s a lot of muscle.
But it?s not just the private sector; since 2008, the UN Environment Program is aggressively promoting what it?s calling the Green Economy Initiative; in 2009 the UN launched the 'Global Green New Deal for a Sustainable Economy;' commodifying plantlife as a biomass carbon source is right there in the framing of the UN REDD Program (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation); it's in the very concept of 'ecosystem services' ? the erroneous idea that we can best protect and preserve biodiversity by putting a price on it, that all of nature is at our service to use as we please.
JC: The new report broadly covers two aspects of the bioeconomy: the rush on biomass as a feedstock, and the conversion of organic matter into what you call 'a platform of production' through emerging tools of synthetic biology. Can you elaborate?
JT: Synthetic biology refers to a set of ?extreme genetic engineering? techniques where you insert synthetic DNA into a cell to hijack the cell's machinery in order to produce substances that aren?t produced naturally. It's repurposing simple cells like yeast and bacteria to create pharmaceutical products, jet fuels, polymers, synthetic foods. In the last five years, it?s moved from being a fringe science to attracting intense interest and investment. For those who want to turn plant life into high value commodities, synthetic biology is a game changer ? but the game they?re changing is a game we can no longer afford to play.
JC: What are the hazards?
JT: One is, again, the land grab, or rather, an Earth grab, because ultimately the advocates of the bioeconomy are seeking to gain control over the full organic production of the planet. A second hazard is the further concentration of bio-technological power in a handful of unaccountable private interests. And of course there?s the frightening possibility of deliberate or accidental environmental release of synthetic organisms such as crops and algae, and accidental escape from the biorefineries that are already being built and operated but are little more than glorified breweries. Since organisms like E Coli, yeast, and algae are incredibly common, there?s the very real possibility of out-crossing with natural species and contamination of microbial communities in soils, seas, and animals ? including us.
Perhaps most significantly, if it works, synthetic biology allows private companies to move the production of natural materials such as rubber or medicinal compounds out of the hands of farmers working in fields and into the control of private interests controlling vats of proprietary microbes. We are actually seeing that happen with a few commodities. For example, Goodyear is using synthetic biology to make rubber from synthetic yeast. If they can do that at scale it could impact the economies of rubber-producing nations such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.
JC: If switching from black energy to green energy won?t save the climate, what will?
JT: Firstly, restraint on the bloated economies of the north whose system of overproduction has fueled the collapse of biodiversity, global inequity and the climate crisis; secondly, democratic control over high-risk and unjust technologies; and thirdly, measures to protect and build the resilience of those whose ways of life actively improve things ? that is, the diverse and decentralized peasant farming systems that rebuild degraded soils, reinforce food sovereignty, and strengthen community and culture. These existing bioeconomies, which are biodiversity-based rather than biomass-based, do a far better job of cooling the planet in a truly renewable way than any amount of biomass burners, biofuel refineries, or chemical factories of genetically-engineered microbes ever will.
Sun November 07 2010 03:27:56 PM by Veronica 1 algae life cycle analysis  |  algae ghg emissions  |  ETC group

Europe's largest Biofuels Congress and Exhibition 2011

Meet, listen to and question 250 global biofuels leaders

Over 250 industry leading speakers will share their expertise on all
aspects of the biofuels value chain during three days of interactive
conference sessions.



Tailor your own agenda from a series of keynotes, focused conferences,
sessions and training course. See below for more details.


 If you would be interested in speaking at World Biofuels Markets 2011, please send a short proposal to nadim.chaudhry@greenpowerconferences.com

Sun October 24 2010 04:19:39 AM by Veronica 4 events  |  exhibitions  |  seminars  |  conferences

Dutch Algae Technology in Carbon Storage Program

I think I have read this sometime ago.Thought it is important news and so I am posting it, May be again:-)

   MBD Energy has purchased a first set of centrifuges. Anglo American, one of the world's largest mining companies, is a cornerstone investor in MBD Energy.
The parties recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding on a multi-phase commercialization program under which Evodos will supply MBD Energy, an Australia-based company, with its Algae Harvesting systems. Larry Sirmans, Technical Director of MBD Energy, said: 'We are excited by the ability of Evodos to harvest algae at low energy requirements and with a high concentration factor, without using any chemicals. We look forward to working with the Evodos team to forge a comprehensive commercial relationship with game-changing potential in the exciting third-generation biofuels space.'
Three of Australia's largest coal fired power generators have committed to building test facilities adjacent to their power stations using MBD's proprietary growth system, the Algae Synthesizer, where smoke-stack CO2 emissions are captured and used to grow oil-rich algae in solar bioreactors. 
This process effectively achieves BIO-CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage). In the full production systems, Evodos?s technology will be integrated into the MBD system to harvest the algae in a concentrated way and at low energy usage.
In the initial phase, Evodos will equip MBD Energy?s research and development facility at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia, where testing will take place. 

The two companies agreed that, subject to the success of the initial test phase, MBD will purchase significantly larger Evodos algae harvesting units to serve facilities planned for its three Algal Synthesizer power station projects in Australia: Tarong Energy (Queensland), Loy Yang A (Victoria) and Eraring Energy (New South Wales).
Marco Brocken, Evodos CEO said: 'With our technology we are now able to accelerate our sustainability agenda by aiding in the process of reducing the global CO2 level. And with the rollout speed of MBD energy this will be a significant reduction. 

The algae harvesting volumes MBD energy requires, allow us to rapidly scale up our technology. This will lead to a harvesting price point that will pull out the plug from the algae industry. Many thanks go to MBD's Larry Sirmans for his vision and persistence in making this partnership possible.'
Queensland Premier Anna Bligh officially opened MBD's expanded R&D facility in November 2009.
 Premier Bligh said: 'The revolutionary algal carbon capture and storage (BIO-CCS) technology is already proving successful in trials and will soon be rolled out at three coal fired power stations, including Tarong Power Station near Kingaroy. This technology has the potential to revolutionize carbon capture in Queensland and around the world.'

She added: 'As our state continues to grow and coal remains a key export, it is essential that we devise new ways to manage the impact of that growth on our environment.'
The Queensland Premier also announced that MBD would shortly commence construction of a one-hectare pilot plant at South Eastern Queensland?s Tarong Power Station. The trial aims to capture 700 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually and, if successful, could expand over the next 5 to 10 years to consume more than half of Tarong?s problem flue-gas emissions.
MBDs Andrew Lawson said that each of the three current MBD power station projects has the potential to then grow to 80-hectare commercial plants, each capable of producing 11 million liters of oil for plastics and transport fuel, and 25,000 tonnes of drought‐proof animal feed annually. He said that the projects will eventually consume more than half of each of the power station?s problem flue-gas emissions.
With Evodos?s Algae Harvesting systems micro algae are harvested undamaged and as an almost completely dewatered paste. The energy balance of this harvesting process is positive. This paves the way for producing third generation biofuels at commercial scale. The Evodos Algae Harvesting systems are based upon Evodos proprietary Spiral Plate centrifugal technology.
About Evodos B.V.Evodos (evodos.eu) brings to the market centrifugal systems based on their patented Spiral Plate Technology (SPT). With SPT solids can be separated in the form of a stackable cake or paste. Solids may take any shape and can be abrasive, soft and even greasy. The high separation sharpness leads to low energy requirements. In case of liquid liquid separation no interface level needs to be set.Evodos positions it's technology in high sustainability markets. Harvesting algae is such a focus point. For this market the Evodos Algae Harvester units are developed. The footprint of the machines is small, noice levels low and maintenance minimal.

Algae brick

A team of Spanish and Scottish scientists have developed bricks which are more sustainable and stronger than traditional ones, as they see it as beneficial to use wool and a component of seaweed.
The experts, who are from the universities of Sevilla (Spain) and Strathclyde (Scotland), explained that these bricks do not require cooking, so as to prevent the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide. In addition to being better adapted to climate extremes.
"The result of our search was a natural organic polymer obtained from the processing of certain species of marine algae that thrive in the oceans," said Carmen Gal?n and Carlos Rivera, from the University of Sevilla.
"Studies suggest that economic and environmental costs are favorable, both for the abundance of raw materials, such as the lack of complexity in manufacturing does not require sophisticated industrial systems", they added, according to BBC World News.
At present, these types of bricks are being used in pilot projects in Nigeria.
The scientists say the resulting natural polymer is completely biodegradable.
They also explained that the wool used in small proportion functions as an internal armor, which improves resistance to bending and drying.
The new bricks are genuinely profitable, although it is not a substitute for conventional bricks, at least at present, but simply a constructive alternative in certain applications, the researchers added.
By Analia Muriaseditorial@fis.comwww.fis.com
Tue October 19 2010 10:03:30 PM by Veronica 2 marine algae  |  brick  |  algae brick  |  Carmen Galan  |  Carlos Rivera

David J. Glass on Gene modification of algae

David J. Glass, Ph.D. of
D. Glass Associates, Inc.is a well known authority in this field and his speech / presentation was among the most looked upto.I have given the text of the slide presentation and the url to see it as a ppt also.
The topic is
"Impact of Government Biotechnology Regulations on Use of Genetically Modified or Synthetic Algae in Biofuel Production "

I am sure many of you will like this and even discuss it.
Veronica Cassandara

David Glass Presentation at 2010 Algae Biomass Summit - Presentation Transcript

  1. Impact of Government Biotechnology Regulations on Use of Genetically Modified or Synthetic Algae in Biofuel Production
    David J. Glass, Ph.D.
    D. Glass Associates, Inc.
    Algae Biomass Summit
    September 28, 2010
  2. Biotechnologies Applicable to Biofuels
    Classical mutation and selection
    Plant breeding
    Recombinant DNA
    Directed evolution
    DNA shuffling
    Metabolic engineering
    Synthetic biology
  3. Applications of Biotechnology to Clean Fuel Production
    Enhanced or engineered microorganisms for fermentation of ethanol, butanol, other fuels.
    Enzymes for fuel production manufactured using engineered microorganisms or plants.
    Selected or engineered plant species for use as improved biofuel feedstocks.
    Improved algal strains for production of biodiesel, jet fuel, ethanol, other fuels.
  4. Genetic Engineering Strategies: Algae
    Enhance algal growth rate.
    Enhance or alter lipid biosynthesis.
    Enhance photosynthesis.
    Enable use of alternate food sources.
    Create new biosynthetic pathways.
    Enable secretion of lipids to aid oil/water separation.
  5. Scientific Issues in the Regulation of Modified Algae
    Legitimate scientific issues need to be addressed for many projects involving modified algal strains.
    Stability of vector and introduced genes.
    Possible deleterious functions encoded by transgene(s).
    Potential for horizontal gene transfer, crossing to wild algae species.
    Potential for engineered strain to be transported outside facility, survive and compete in environment.
  6. Overview of U.S. Biotechnology Regulation
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Microbial pesticides, plant pesticides.
    Engineered microorganisms used for other industrial purposes.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture
    Transgenic plants, potential plant pests.
    Plant-produced industrial products.
    Food and Drug Administration
    Foods, food additives, pharmaceuticals
    Possible applicability to algae
    TSCA biotech rule
    USDA biotech rule
    Product ?specific regulation
  7. Overview: EPA TSCA Biotechnology Regulations
    Regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
    Regulations
    cover industrial uses of ?intergeneric? microorganisms not regulated by
    other agencies; e.g. industrial enzyme production, bioprocessing.
    Scope of coverage could include algae.
    Most research and pilot projects are not regulated if suitably ?contained?.
    Commercial use or importation requires 90 day advance notification to EPA.
  8. Overview: USDA Biotechnology Regulations
    Regulations issued in 1987 cover environmental uses, interstate movement of ?potential plant pests?.
    Applicability to algae under current definitions not clear.
    Rules have generally not covered ?contained? use of organisms in manufacturing.
    USDA has been considering revisions to the rule since 2007.
    Regulatory program being challenged in the courts over NEPA compliance.
  9. Overview: FDA Biotechnology Regulations
    Engineered algae used for food, food additive, pharmaceutical production would be subject to FDA product-specific regulations.
    These regulations focus more on safety, efficacy of end product, and less on risks of production organism.
    Algae used for an FDA-regulated purpose would likely be exempt from EPA oversight under TSCA.
  10. Regulatory Jurisdiction for Engineered Algae
    Proposed
    use of engineered algae by Mera Pharmaceuticals in pharmaceutical
    production in Hawaii in 2005 generated controversy, no federal agency
    claimed jurisdiction: state law and state courts ultimately determined
    outcome.
    2008 USDA opinion letter to Coastal BioMarine stated no USDA
    oversight over engineered algal strain if no ?plant pest? sequences,
    and no oversight for smaller-scale use in contained reactors.
    It is important to avoid jurisdictional disputes as the industry moves forward.
  11. EPA TSCA Biotechnology Rule:?New Organism? Definition
    TSCA covers only ?new chemicals?, so Biotech Rule covers only ?new microorganisms?.
    ?New
    microorganisms? defined as ?intergeneric?: i.e., containing deliberate
    combinations of coding nucleic acids from more than one taxonomic genus.
    Many recombinant microorganisms will not meet this definition, and not be covered by these rules.
  12. EPA TSCA Biotechnology Rule:R&D (?Small Quantities?) Exemption
    R&D
    uses of ?new microorganisms? may qualify for exemption, if used ?solely
    for R&D? in a suitably ?contained structure?.
    Applicant must
    adopt procedures at the facility for controlled access, inactivation of
    wastes, emission controls, worker notification.
    Exemption could apply to R&D by for-profit entities, including pilot plants.
    Open-pond algae reactors may not be judged to be ?contained structures?.
    Non-contained uses may require EPA notification, review prior to commencement.
  13. EPA TSCA Biotechnology Rule: Microbial Commercial Activity Notifications (MCANs)
    Commercial
    use or importation of ?new microorganisms? requires MCAN reporting at
    least 90 days before commencing commercialization or importing microbe.
    MCAN requires submission of data to EPA.
    Microorganism identity, construction and its properties.
    Information about the industrial process, control/containment measures, worker exposure, possible environmental release.
    EPA review, clearance of MCAN authorizes commercial use.
  14. EPA TSCA Biotechnology Rule:Biofuel, Bio-Based Chemical MCANs
    29 MCANs reviewed since 1997, including:
    Numerous MCANs for industrial enzymes.
    Modified E. coli and Klebsiella oxytoca for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass sugars to ethanol (Verenium, 2008, 2010).
    ?Biopolymer producing organism? for the industrial manufacture of a biopolymer (Company Confidential, 2008).
    Modified Zymomonas mobilis for cellulosic ethanol production (DuPont, 2009).
  15. EPA TSCA Biotechnology Rule:Summary
    Most R&D would be exempt if ?contained?.
    Commercial uses require 90 day advance notice.
    EPA has a track record in recent years reviewing microorganisms for use in biofuels, bio-based chemical production.
    EPA review considers risks and benefits.
    MCAN review clears the way for commercial use.
    EPA review is generally considered to meet requirements under NEPA, so Environmental Impact Statement not needed.
  16. USDA Biotechnology Regulation:Scope of Coverage
    USDA Biotech Regulations administered by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
    Rules cover organisms that are potential plant pests, generally based on presence of DNA sequences from potential plant pests.
    Rules cover environmental use or interstate movement of potential plant pest organisms.
    Most submissions have been for transgenic plants, some for modified agricultural microorganisms.
  17. USDA Biotechnology Regulation:Oversight over R&D
    R&D use covered only if in open environment.
    Notifications: 30 day advance notice.
    Permits: submit application 120 days in advance.
    Permits generally required for industrial uses.
    Submissions require:
    Description of host organism and genetic modifications.
    Description of field test; proposed procedures and controls.
    Assess environmental impact of field use.
  18. USDA Biotechnology Regulation:Approvals for Commercial Use
    Approval for commercial use and sale through ?petitions for nonregulated status?.
    Since early 1990s, USDA has approved 78 petitions to allow commercial sale of engineered crop plants.
    Approvals can take 1-4 years.
    Recent court cases have ruled that these approvals may require Environmental Impact Statements.
  19. USDA Biotechnology Regulation:Summary
    Tens of thousands of field tests approved under these regulations ? no approvals for algae?
    Limited experience with R&D permits for novel biofuel feedstocks, no commercial approvals.
    USDA
    likely to have scientific expertise to review biology of photosynthetic
    algae, but applicability under existing definitions unclear.
    Uncertain future for these regulations, due to ongoing rulemaking and court decisions regarding NEPA compliance.
  20. Environmental Impact Statements?
    National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Environmental Assessments,
    Environmental Impact Statements, for ?major federal actions?.
    Courts have ruled that product approvals under USDA biotech regulation require EIS?s.
    EPA actions under most of its regulations considered to inherently comply with NEPA requirements.
    Recent calls for DOE to conduct EIS for its program supporting algal biofuel research.
    Question: are EIS?s needed, and if so, when?
  21. ABO Technical Standards Committee: Goals Published in Initial Draft
    Set the terms of the debate; encourage responsible, science-based regulation.
    Distinguish between different biotechnologies used to create organisms.
    Develop standards for data submission, performance of production facilities, organism containment.
    Develop a ?road map? for regulatory approval of industrial uses of modified algae.
    Influence public perception.
  22. ABO Technical Standards Committee: Challenges to Achieving Goals
    Biotech
    regulations use longstanding definitions to define which organisms are
    covered; would be difficult to introduce new classification schemes.
    Regulations
    differ in performance standards, data requirements and review
    procedures; standardization would be easier if one agency had sole
    jurisdiction.
    Growth of GM algae in open ponds.
    Public perception is critical. Although not as bad as the 1980s, there are still many vocal critics out there.
  23. Impact of Biotechnology Regulations
    Efforts to promote standardization, interagency cooperation are important to ensure a science-based regulatory framework.
    However,
    the existing biotech regulatory framework provides a straightforward
    path to commercial approval, with many prior successes in agricultural,
    industrial biotechnology.
    The regulatory process can be successfully managed with proper advance planning.
  24. Thank you very much
    David J. Glass, Ph.D.
    D. Glass Associates, Inc.
    124 Bird Street
    Needham, MA 02492
    Phone 617-653-9945
    DGlassAssc@aol.com
    www.dglassassociates.com
    http://dglassassociates.wordpress.com
Tue October 05 2010 03:25:27 AM by Veronica David Glass  |  Genetic modification of algae  |  synthetic algae

Algae biodiesel production cost, thrice as costly as petroleum


The cost of producing biodiesel from algae is currently 52.3 Euros per gigajoule of energy, compared with 36 Euros for rapeseed and only 15.8 Euros for oil.
 Wesseler has factored in the high costs of algae reactors based on figures from current, especially American, algae processors.

 'Those facilities are not the most modern and efficient', he says.
'In the past year, the conversion of algae into biodiesel has become more efficient and, therefore, less costly.'
Wageningen University, part of Wageningen UR, is the only university in the Netherlands to focus specifically on the theme healthy food and living environment. Environmental economist Justus Wesseler PhD is a Professor at Wageningen University.
Wageningen University is part of Wageningen UR (University & Research centre). The university works together with research institutes and Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, also part of Wageningen UR.

If biodiesel from algae were to be competitive with other biofuels, the productivity of algae reactors would have to grow annually by at least three to four percent more than the productivity of other bioreactors over a stretch of fifteen years, says Professor Wesseler.

Wesseler gives this a fairly high probability of success. 
'Wijffels and Barbosa see many ways to improve the production process. The conversion of rapeseed and other crops into biofuels is already at a more advanced stage compared with that for diesel from algae.

 Upscaling the technology can also lead to big cost reductions.' If oil prices were to rise again too, a point will come when biodiesel from algae becomes cheaper than biodiesel from oil.

 Provided that the government and the private sector keep investing in developing algae technology, adds Wesseler.
Thu September 30 2010 02:56:14 PM by Veronica 20 cost of algae biodiesel

Algae biofuel using CO2 from a whisky plant !

The Glenturret Distillery in Perthshire home to The Famous Grouse Whisky percolate CO2 made during the whisky distillation through a microalgae bioreactor.


 Each tonne of microalgae absorbs two tonnes of CO2. Scottish Bioenergy, who run the project, sell the microalgae as high value, protein-rich food for fisheries.

 In the future, they plan to use the algae to produce other high value products and feed the residues to an anaerobic digester.


Anaerobic digestion is the process where bacteria and other micro-organisms break down plant and animal material in the absence of air. The product of anaerobic digestion is a combustible gas, which Scottish Bioenergy plan to use to generate renewable heat and power for the distillery.

 Anaerobic digestion is a wet process so there is no need for water removal, reducing the carbon footprint associated with harvesting the algae.


'In the short term, microalgae will be made into high value products, but increasingly are expected to help in the remediation of wastes,' says Dr Claire Smith, algae lead for the NNFCC  the UK's National Centre for biorenewable fuels, materials and technologies.

'Energy opportunities will develop through using algal residues but are likely to be smaller, more local solutions, rather than the larger scale facilities we see abroad.'
Microalgae offer a real solution to the challenges of climate change and can provide additional environmental benefits. 

The opportunities for UK companies to develop this budding technology are tremendous, but so remain the challenges.


Article by Dr Matthew Aylott is a staff writer with the National Non-Food Crops Centre, which receives funding from The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and industry sponsorship.


My questions are the same as what Alan Schafaer asks regarding Co2 absorption in a coal power plant.
How much land is required for this ?
What is being done in the nights ? 
Sun September 26 2010 09:34:49 PM by Veronica 4 Dr Claire Smith  |  NNFCC  |  Glenturret Distillery  |  Grouse whisky

News, views, analysis and Andres Abhraham

Oilgae site has been the source of information for all students, academia, researchers, practising CTOs of algae biofuel companies etc.,
for years.

Now, oilgae club  is a community of algae professionals.

It is only natural that when professionals of a community meet in a conference or elsewhere, they  exchange news about
Algae bio fuel activity from one country to another.
 We exchange news and compare news about one process vs another process.
 we learn from each others views.
 With each news viz a new two way wet process to avoid drying as done by University of Michigan, we all will be keen on knowing more about it.
They will exchange news about other professionals
They will exchange news about latest events/ seminars/ conferences
They will exchange information and views about latest research findings
About latest patents and papers published

By posting a company  news, AA says I take pride in so doing and I take credit for posting that news.

NO way.
I am just sharing what ever I have read. I am hoping experts like Andres Abhram, Larsyn, SAM, Shankar, Georgeonik, Richard spros,
Mia, Parkavi, narsi etc  to comment on such news/ research findings or research directions and tell

1. what are the benefits of such findings
2. how such a finding can reduce the cost or speeden up progress to oil from algae
3. what other directions can research can take to be more efficient

etc etc

AA, to me appears tobe saying that there is nothing new is being found. I cant  agree with him. I mean I disagree with him.
What is known is peanuts. The rest of the universe is unkown.

Research as a generic field and  is for ever.
The more you know, the more you would want to research.

I find the club is evolving into a place where we are sharing news, sometimes sharing the news with views.
This makes me open the club everyday. Visit the club everyday.

I wish there can be more news. And even more views.
Plus I expect experts like AA, Larsyn, SAM Development, Shankar, Oilgae narsi etc etc to  share their views more frequently to enlighten others.

I agree with AA on one matter fully. Sometimes, we dont seem to arrive at conclusions. We are not definitive.
But then as we all are new to the club, may be that is thereason why we are not doing it. As we get to know one another more, may be we will debate more, discuss more and decide clearly.

The other fact is, as algae is still in research phase as said by John Benneman, Jason Pyke of Sapphire energy, narsi of OIlgae, etc., many areas will continue to be grey. Not as AA sees either in black or in white.

AA himself has not replied to a couple of queries for his post " Algae food "

Is it right AA ?

Secondly AA to me somehow appears to mean
Always Angry ?

Am I right AA :-)
Tue September 21 2010 10:08:31 PM by Veronica 9 Andres Abhram  |  alganova