Producing bio-fuels from microalgae oil has recently been proposed as a renewable, carbon neutral alternative to fossil-based transportation fuels. The excessive commercial and political interest in sustainable sources for transportation fuels from renewables is creating new opportunities, but also new challenges for industrial algae producers.

As a result of their biochemical and morphological diversity, there is a growing market for microalgae on a commercial scale. The total production of microalgae is 5,000 tons per annum. Global sales are worth about US$2.5 billion.

There are various fields close to the food industry that benefit from the biotechnology of microalgae. For example, the aqua cultivation, feed, cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries, or chemistry, pet food or health food sectors, have applications of different species of microalgae.

Diverse companies worldwide produce fine chemicals like dyes or fatty acids, analytical standards for algal toxins and natural carotenoids. Cultivation in open systems is primarily used in the Asia-Pacific rim. Many companies which are located in Europe and the USA, in contrast, offer different technologies for marine biotechnologies.

Despite the increasing interest in this industry, it is very difficult to get an overview of which companies are already able to supply algae, and which production volumes are realistic.

Based on a recent Internet search (July 2010), we present here a list of algae producers and companies currently developing production technology. This list doesn’t claim to be complete yet. It is, however, the most comprehensive web directory of this industry publicly available.

Germany/Austria

Cyano Biofuels GmbH http://www.cyano-biofuels.com/
Phytolutions GmbH www.phytolutions.com
Greenovation http://www.greenovation.com/
Subitec GmbH http://www.subitec.com/
Astaxa http://www.algae-biotech.com/
IGV GmbH http://www.igv-gmbh.de/
Bioprodukte Prof. Steinberg GmbH http://www.algomed.de/
Blue Biotech GmbH http://www.bluebiotech.de/
Algaegrowth http://www.algaegrowth.de/
Novagreen GmbH http://www.novagreen-microalgae.com/inde…
Salata GmbH
Breen Biotec GmbH http://www.breen-biotec.de/
Astaxa http://www.algae-biotech.com
See-O-two http://www.seeholding.com

Israel

Algatech http://www.algatech.com/
Seambiotic http://www.seambiotic.com/
Nature Beta Technologies
Transalgae http://www.transalgae.com/

Spain

Bio Fuel Systems http://www.biopetroleo.com/
Aurantia http://www.aurantia.es/
Marine Farm Madrid http://marinefarm.blogspot.com/
Easy Algae http://www.easyalgae.com
Algaebiotech SA http://www.algaebiotech.es/
Cleanalgae SA http://www.cleanalgae.es/
Algasol Technologies http://www.algasolrenewables.com/en/

The Netherlands

AlgaeLink, http://www.algaelink.com/
BioKing closed
Ingrepro BV http://www.ingrepro.nl/?lang=EN
Algae Food and Fuel http://www.algaefoodfuel.com/english/hom…
Evodos Algae Technologies www.evodos.eu
Phycom BV www.phycom.eu

Portugal

AlgaFuel, S.A. http://www.algafuel.pt/
Necton S.A. http://phytobloom.com

Canada

Canada Algae Fuel System http://www.algaefuelsystems.com/
Canadianpacificalgae http://www.canadianpacificalgae.com/
Pond Biofuels http://www.pondbiofuels.com

Argentina

Oil Fox http://www.oilfox.com.ar/

USA

A2Be Carbon Capture http://www.algaeatwork.com/
Algae Biosciences Corp. http://www.algaebio.com/
Algae Floating Systems, Inc. http://www.algaefloatingsystems.com/
Algae Fuel System http://www.algaefuelsystems.com/
Algaeventure Systems http://www.algaevs.coom
Algaewheel http://www.algaewheel.com/
Algaeproductionsystems http://algaeproductionsystems.com/
Algalfarms inc http://www.algalfarms.com/
Algenol http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/
Algenetix http://www.algenetix.com/
Aquatic Energy http://www.aquaticenergy.com/
Aurora BioFuels,Inc. http://www.aurorabiofuels.com/
AXI http://www.axillc.com/
Bioalgene http://www.bioalgene.com/bio.html
Biocentric Energy http://www.biocentricenergy.com/
Biofuelbox http://www.biofuelbox.com/algae.html
Biogreen International http://www.biogreenintl.com/algae.html
Bionavitas http://www.bionavitas.com/contact.html
Blue Marble Energy http://bluemarbleenergy.net/
Bodega Algae http://www.bodegaalgae.com/
Carbon Capture Corp. http://www.carbcc.com/
Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management – CEHMM http://www.cehmm.org/
Cellana-Shell http://www.hrbp.com/Partners/Shell-Cella…
Chevron Corporation http://www.chevron.com/News/Press/Releas…
Circle Biodiesel & Ethanol Corp http://www.circlebio.com/algae_biodiesel…
Cyanotech Corporation Cyanotech Corporation
Cuturing Solutions Inc http://www.culturingsolutions.com/
Diversified Energy Corporation http://www.diversified-energy.com/
Earthrise Nutritional, LLC http://www.earthrise.com/
Global Green Solutions http://www.globalgreensolutionsinc.com/s…
GreenerBioEnergy http://www.greenerbioenergy.com/technolo…
GreenFuel Technologies Corporation closed
Hydromentia http://www.hydromentia.com
Imperium Renewables http://www.imperiumrenewables.com/
Infinifuel Biodiesel http://www.infinifuel.com/research.htm
Inspired Fuels http://www.inspiredfuels.com
International Energy http://www.internationalenergyinc.com/
Inventure Chemical Technology http://www.inventurechem.com/contact_us….
Joule Biotechnologies http://www.jouleunlimited.com
Kai BioEnergy Corp. http://www.kaibioenergy.com/
Kent Seatech http://www.kentbioenergy.com/page5/page5…
Live Fuels, Inc. http://www.livefuels.com/
Martek Biosciences Corporation http://www.martek.com
MBD Energy Ltd http://www.mbdenergy.com/catalogue/c10
Mera Pharmaceuticals http://www.merapharma.com
Organic Fuels http://www.organicfuels.com/technology/a…
OriginOil http://www.originoil.com/
Patriot Biofuels -EF3 tornado detroyed plant-
Petroalgae http://www.petroalgae.com/
PetroSun http://www.petrosuninc.com/
Phycal LLC http://www.phycal.com/
Phyco2 http://phyco2.us/contact.html
Planktonix http://www.planktonix-corp.com/
Primafuel http://www.primafuel.com/
Renewergy http://www.renewergy.biz
Renewable World Energies http://www.rwenergies.com
Sapphire Energy http://www.sapphireenergy.com/
Solazyme, Inc http://www.solazyme.com/
Sunecoenergy http://sunecoenergy.com/
Sunpower http://www.sunpowercorp.com
Solix Biofuels http://www.solixbiofuels.com/
Susquehanna Biotech, LLC http://www.susquehannabiotech.com/
Terrabon http://www.terrabon.com
Valcent http://www.valcent.net/s/Home.asp
Xlrenewables http://www.xlrenewables.com/

Australia / New Zealand

Cognis Australia Pty Ltd http://www.au.cognis.com
Biomax biodiesel http://www.biomaxfuels.com.au/
Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation (ABC) http://www.aquaflowgroup.com/contact.htm…
Nutrimed Gro http://www.nutrimedgroup.com/ingredients…
Aquacarotene Ltd. http://www.aquacarotene.com.au

China

Jiangsu Tiankai Biotechnology Co., Ltd Company website not found
Far East Microalgae Ind Co., Ltd. http://www.femico.com.tw/eng/algaeintro….
BlueBio (Yantai) Bio-pharmaceutical Co., Ltd http://www.bluebio.cn/
Changsha Natureway Co., Ltd Company website not found
Qingdao Haizhijiao Biotechnology Co., Ltd. Company website not found
Tianjin Norland Biotech Co., Ltd. http://www.norlandbiotech.com/products1….
Jiangsu Cibainian Nutrition Food Co. , Ltd. http://chinaspirulina.fuzing.com/
Nanchang Yuanhe health-product Devoloping Co., Ltd Company website not found
Beihai Biology Care Deli Co., Ltd. Company website not found
Wefirst Biotechnology Co., Ltd http://www.astawefirst.com/
Jiangxi Boyuan Spirulina Co., Ltd. Company website not found
Jiangsu Cibainian Nutrition Food Co., Ltd. Company website not found
Yunnan Spirin Co. Ltd, China Company website not found
Dongtai City Spirulina Bio-engineering Co., Ltd. http://www.spirulinafactory.com/
LifeTech Enterprises Inc.USA Company website not found
Shandong Firstspirulina Biotech Co., Ltd Company website not found
Hainan Dic Microalgae Co., Ltd. http://www.hidic.com.cn/
Fuqing Kind DDnarmsa Spirulina Co.,Ltd http://www.kingdnarmsa.cn/en/company.asp…
Erdos Jiali Spirulina Co., Ltd Company website not found
BiofuelsHK Company website not found
Wudi IMVE Feed & Biotech Co Company website not found
Shenzhen Jawkai bioengineering R&D center company limited http://www.jawkai.com

Korea

Daesang Corp http://www.edaesang.com/
Korean Chlorella Company website not found

India

Aurobiotech Company website not found

Energymicroalgae http://www.energymicrolgae.com

Jovialis Company website not found
Sateera Nutria Biotech Company website not found
Parry Nutraceuticals http://www.parrynutraceuticals.com/
Avantha (Mysore) Company website not found

Malaysia

Algaetech Sdn. Bhd. http://www.algaetech.com.my/

Saudi Arabia

National Prawn Company http://www.robian.com.sa/

Japan

Sunchlorella http://www.sunchlorella.com/
Chlorella Industry Co., Company website not found
Yaeyama Shokusan Co., Ltd. http://www.yaeyamachlorella.com
Chlorella Industry Co.,LTD Company website not found
Nihon Vitamin Chemical Co., Ltd. Company website not found
Nikken Sohonsha Company http://www.chlostanin.co.jp/

Turkey

Algatek Company website not found

UK

Algaebiotechproducts http://www.algaebiotechproducts.com/ABP/…
Oxford Algaetech http://www.oxfordalgaetech.co.uk

Finland

Neste Oil Corporation http://www.nesteoil.com/

Myanmar

Myanmar Pharmaceutical Industries http://www.industry1myanmar.com/English/…

Taiwan

Taiwan Chlorella Manufacturing Company http//www.taiwanchlorella.com/
Far East Bio-Tec Co., Ltd http://www.febico.com.tw
Vedan Enterprise Corp. http://www.vedan.com
Taiwan Marine Technology Co., LTD. www.FranTechAsia.com

Brazil

Revolution Biofuels http://www.biofuelsrevolution.com/

Chile

Solarium Biotechnology http://www.spirulina.cl/

Thailand

Siam Algae Co., Ltd Company website not found
Boonsoms Farm http://www.gd-1.com/about.htm

France

Roquette http://www.algohub-roquette.com/

Russia

Conversia Co. Company website not found

Norway

Algetech Industrier AS http://www.aquaflor.no

Belgium

SBAE Industries http://www.sbae-industries.com/
Proviron http://www.proviron.com/algae/GB/index_G…

By Prof. Dr. Gerd Kloeck

Professor of Bioprocess Engineering

Hochschule Bremen

Bremen

Germany

 Gerd.kloeck at hs-bremen.de

Regarding ‘Governments want research funding at heart of innovation plan‘:

European research ministers are right to insist upon research funding to drive the EU’s innovation policy, but there is an additional side-benefit worth mentioning: retention of research academics.

A recent survey of 1,800 EU academics completed at the Vienna University of Economics and Business revealed that the absence of research funding and related facilities was responsible for favourable decisions to move to non-European destinations, mainly US universities.

Since EU universities already perform higher shares of research than their US counterparts, increased research funding will yield multiple beneficial effects.

Prof. Edward Bergman

Vienna University of Economics and Business

Regarding ‘Regional ‘stars’ rewarded for innovative projects‘:

The EU’s integrated ‘innovation chain’ has never been complete and therefore will never work. For if we have a broken link in any connected chain or necklace, it will always inextricably fall to the ground. The only way to fix that link is to connect the two unconnected ends together: likewise for Europe’s innovation strategy, which is currently missing its vital link of ‘independent’ invention and ideas – the prerequisite of economic dynamism in the 21st Century.

Unfortunately, EU politicians and their commissioners do not read or understand what the history of science and technology tells them. If they did, they would understand that over 75% of all the ‘fundamental thinking’ that underpinned the inventions that have made the modern world what it is today did not emanate from our university laboratories or advanced corporate R&D centres, but from the minds of ‘independent’ inventors and innovators.

For example, the late Jack Kilby invented the Integrated Circuit (IC) in his own spare time and was not asked by Texas Instruments or his university to invent it. No, he did so out of sheer interest and basically it became his private hobby. This single invention is now, according to Texas Instruments, underpinning a global annual industry worth trillions of dollars.

Without it, this global industry just simply would not exist – the IC is therefore the greatest wealth creator ever invented and enjoys the equivalent in annual economic turnover to that of India, Russia or Canada.

Wouldn’t it be great if the EU were to come up with several equivalents to the IC, transforming Europe’s economic fortunes overnight? But this will never happen, as EU’s ‘independent’ inventors are not considered to be a part of the EU’s innovation and economic strategy.

That is how backward our politicians, commissioners and policymakers really are; for they have not as yet grasped the vital importance of the contribution that our independent inventors could provide.

Indeed, if they had a clue, they would firstly set up a network where these very special people within an European innovation chain should come first before all others. For we have to have the fundamental thinking first and not our universities or corporate R&D centres first as we have today. Overall if we created the innovative infrastructure for these people to flourish, the EU’s innovation chain could be completed.

This is truly the missing link in the EU’s thinking and until our policymakers understand this pre-eminent European economic deficit, Europe will always stagnate in economic terms against the backdrop of the continual emerging creative might of South-East Asia. For in another 25 years, the EU will be the poor man of the world unless it grasps now the crucial importance of our Independent innovators and puts in place the mechanism that they need to release their unique thinking.

Presently, we have the cart before the horse and to stop the EU’s eventual socio-economic meltdown, we have to reverse these positions for our own good in the long term.

Dr. David Hill
Executive Director
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland

Regarding ‘Brussels pushes for electric cars‘:

Eurobat, the association of European storage battery manufacturers, supports the main themes of the Commission’s communication of 28 April 2010 on clean and efficient vehicles. Our members represent all major manufacturers and are up to the challenge to serve this fast growing market. They will continue to contribute to the technological advancement of batteries and electrical systems serving the entire supply chain. We will support development of standards.

We also believe that some aspects could be further explored. First, the recognition of early contributions to energy saving and emission reduction. For example, the current micro-hybrid technologies already reduce between 5-7% of CO2 emissions from passenger cars. These include start-stop systems and recuperation of braking energy through lead-based batteries. European industry is introducing these innovative solutions fast and is anticipated to become the world leader.

Second, all technologies must play a role and all can compete and complement each other. This co-existence, currently and in the long run, enables the ongoing improvement of each specific technology, characteristics and competitive advantages, and contributes to the long-term reduction of CO2 emissions.

Third, batteries play an increasingly important role in storing renewable energy at source or in intermediary stages, thereby contributing to the availability of green electrical energy. For example, solar or wind energy can be stored when supply is high and then used when demand peaks.

“Eurobat was actively involved in the stakeholder consultation,” said Alfons Westgeest, Eurobat secretary-general. “Our members will continue to support both policymakers and customer groups to deliver high-quality products for energy storage in automotive, renewable energy and industrial applications.”

For further information:

EUROBAT
www.eurobat;org
Association of European Storage Battery Manufacturers
serving automotive, energy and industrial markets
Avenue Jules Bordet 142
B – 1140 Brussels
Belgium
Telephone: + 32 2 761 1653
Fax: + 32 2 761 1699
E-mail:  eurobat at kelleneurope.com

Regarding ‘Electric cars push needs’careful thinking’‘

The discussion about electric cars is very narrow. Many people around the world question the Western lifestyle, with its huge mobility and huge consumption of energy, including fuel for the transport sector.

Any action should start with questioning transport ‘needs’ and look at how we can maintain essential functions with new ways of thinking and a new way of organising our lives. The next step is to look at energy sources. If we make electricity from coal, oil or nuclear power, we are still in a way of thinking where natural resources are exploited and made into waste – instead of having a society with renewables and recycling.

We can use wind, waves, solar panels and bio-energy, but these sources will not be available in amounts to feed today’s mobility.

Bernt Lindberg

BioMobil

Regarding ‘Finance ministers want 3% R&D target ditched‘:

The 3% is an easily memorable and therefore useful political target. However, we must look at its practical implications in a more careful and nuanced way.

Simply to claim that a country with high R&D spending will become more competitive than another with lower spending (both expressed in percentage of their GDP) is far fetched and too simplistic. Equally pointless is any exercise that looks at divergence from the 3% Barcelona target in isolation. I would caution against such a simplistic linear approach. Yet, simple economic indicators fascinate many policy analysts.

One must keep in mind that the figure of 3% has no scientific foundation. It is a pragmatic estimation (in other words, a qualified guesstimate) by an expert group that carried out the ‘Second five year-assessment of the EU RTD framework programme’ (chaired by Joan Majo in 1999-2000).

Nevertheless, it has achieved its aim and succeeded in focusing attention on R&D funding. Indeed, the progress towards the 3% target from a lower figure can be considered as an expression of the ability and readiness to modernise the national science policy in question.

As a general guiding principle, the 3% is useful and should remain in place.

Gilbert Fayl

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

Regarding ‘Greens embrace enzymes in climate change fight‘:

This is a serious issue and is much like that of genetically-modified organisms.

Using enzymes to disrupt biomass is tantamount to opening up the proverbial ‘Pandora’s box”. You do not know the consequences and you do not know where it will end.

It is all very well for companies to suggest that this is the answer to making biofuels, but hold on a moment. These organisms are not all they are claimed to be. Yes, they can assist, but what happens if they leach out of their base process, or are inadvertently modified and then leach out and are used by the military?

We should be aware that by tinkering with these organisms and then using them in this way, should they be released ‘inadvertently’ they could totally devastate the very flora upon which we depend to sustain our existence. Has this notion of use ever been thought through? Consider what would happen if an enzyme used to break down wood was released across the arboreal forests of Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Baltic States and Russia! The whole area would be devastated within months, much like the wheat rusts and the cassava fungal rots that were released recently in West Africa to ensure that corn and sugar-cane ethanol prices were favoured over other routes.

There has to be some concern here, and I for one here wish to address these by raising this concern here! It is real and many in the industry are concerned about it.

When one or two companies hold up the notion that these enzymes are made to benefit the manufacture of biofuels straight from biomass, they are not doing it for anything else other than self-interest. If you do not believe this, then we should note and then watch their share prices rise on the back of such publicity! This is nothing to do with beneficial uses of enzymes, for once they have a market and control that market, they control more of that market (that sounds familiar, doesn’t it?)

The European Union has within its grasp a number of aspiring companies that are in the area of manufacturing biofuels from non-food sources which it could help much more forcefully than it does at this time. I recently heard of one particular application to the FP7 Team where a company’s process using dilute-acid hydrolysis and a proprietary piece of innovative engineering – the gravity pressure vessel – had been proposed but was rejected through a mistake by the proposing company.

The process and its background is one of over 180 years’ base and requires no specially engineered enzymes to reduce the biomass to the sugars for making biofuels. Isn’t this what we need as much as has been paraded here? The original company behind the process that has brought this patented tool to the EU is still there, forging ahead without this needed help of the EU. So why hasn’t the EU made a direct approach to them to get around this application nonsense?

This is the sort of innovation in a process developed by a company which is sorely needed by us here in the EU, and the EU is not helping it at all. Here is a process and a tool which can tackle the huge waste mountains of biomass readily and cheaply, and yet it is being ignored. The EU could assist here, as it is spending our taxpayers’ money on hugely expensive alternatives many of which have little prospect of becoming commercially sensible.

Here is a process which is shortly to be used in real programmes to convert the biomass from municipal solid waste to make ethanol at a number of facilities including: Mytum and Selby in West Yorkshire, and projects in Vietnam, China, India and the Mediterranean communities as well as in the USA. And as a process which has the potential to turn municipal solid waste in to ethanol in a manner which has both a low initial capital cost (around a third of the thermal destruction processes like that proposed for Dublin or Kuala Lumpur/Malaysia and for Hertfordshire/UK) and an equally low-cost operations and maintenance involvement, it is here and waiting to be rolled out with the EU’s support.

Geraldine Edwards

Regarding ‘Algae: The ultimate biofuel‘:

Because microalgae can, in principle, be easily and quickly propagated, these organisms have been the focus of applied research investigating the generation of valuable biomass.

Decisive factors in the rising intersts for algae include its ability to accommodate large quantities of lipids under certain circumstances, and the possibility to propagate microalgae in water resources which are not usually exploitable (salt, waste and brackish water), in areas that have remained unsuitable for agriculture, in order to pull large quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Microalgae would thus be able (at least in theory) to provide a sustainable source of biofuel without competing with agricultural production. On account of various technical advantages, such as energy fuel value, energy density and compatibility with existing technologies, many researchers consider biodiesel the preferred final source of energy to be produced out of algae.

At first glance, producing biodiesel from algae biomass is a simple technical process. The algae must be harvested from the culture medium and dried before the lipids contained within can be extracted and ultimately, converted into biodiesel.

The essential feasibility of this procedure at laboratory scale has been demonstrated by many scientists. Already sixty-five years ago, scientists succeeded in extracting oils for technical applications from microalgae, diatoms in this case. In 1942, Harder and von Witsch obtained about two grams of oil per square metre of culturing area per day using a simple culturing system.

Today, researchers achieved results of an average of 5 to 10 grams oil per square meter per day, over productive months. While significantly greater yields were observed on certain days, the decisive factor for evaluating productivity is the average productivity over a period of several months.

Sunlight is the energy source behind microalgae growth. The availability of light limits the amount of biomass that can be produced. On average, annual solar radiation in Germany is approximately 1000 kWh. The maximum theoretically attainable efficiency of photosynthesis with respect to the energy of solar radiation is 11%.  At a fuel value of about 6 KWh per kilogram for algae biomass, in Germany there is a maximum potential annual algae biomass accretion of approximately 100 grams per square metre per day (in the Sahara, this value would be approximately double). Considering an average oil content of 30%, theoretically a maximum of about 30 grams of extractable algae oil could be produced per square metre and day.

The yields produced are already up to 30% of the thermodynamic maximum. Even if, after 65 years of research and development, microalgal productivity could be increased above the currently achievable quantity, the increase would only be by a factor of two in optimistic scenarios.

The question of energy balance is an essential factor influencing sustainability of biomass production. How much energy is in the biomass and how much energy is required for production and refining?

A kilogram of dried algae biomass has a fuel value of 27 MJ. The state of technology indicates employing a paddle mixer to continuously mix an algae culture, the mixer requiring about two MJ of energy to produce one kilogram of algae biomass. The fertilisers required are also obtained by expending energy; for of algae, the energy required for this ranges from five to 12 MJ. Pumps will be required for harvesting, replenishing and emptying basins and maintaining water levels.

Assuming a water volume to be moved of about 10 to 60 cubic metres per kilogram of algae produced, and an energy requirement of 0.1 kW per cubic metre, up to 16 MJ of energy are required per kilogram of algae.

Finally, consider the energy required for harvesting: even assuming that the algae could be sedimented spontaneously or by adding flocculants and thus be enriched by a factor of 10, it remains necessary to further concentrate the remaining volume before drying. Considering that a separator requires one kWh per cubic metre, there is a further increase of 3.6 MJ per kilogram of algae. A band filter press would require half as much energy. A further 7-8 MJ per kilogram are required for drying the algae.

With recourse to the usual current technology, at least 35 to 45 MJ of energy must be expended in order to produce a ‘value’ of 27 MJ in dry algal biomass

This simple estimate does not take into account many steps in the total production process of actual biofuel such as biodiesel that also requires energy. The energy costs for transport, supplying CO2 to the cultures, preparation and regeneration of culture media, cleaning procedures and finally, the extraction process, would have to be taken into account.

It should also be taken into consideration that each step in the process is accompanied by a certain loss factor. The above estimate operates with the unrealistic assumption of zero loss during the procedures. The basic data used for this calculation are derived from practical experience at considerably smaller facilities. Higher energy costs are to be expected in larger facilities in the future, possessing multiple square kilometres, since liquids such as culture medium etc. will have to be transported over longer distances.

The negative energy balance is not the only problem in evaluating the sustainability of algae biodiesel. There are a range of other, unsolved problematic issues that will be briefly outlined.

As many studies have already shown, it is not possible to prevent undesired organisms in open ponds over an extended period (e.g. ‘wild’ algae, bacteria, protozoa, water fleas and insects, such as mosquitoes). This could make the use of herbicides or pesticides necessary over large areas. Mixed cultures would become established, making it impossible to market the biomass as higher quality.

Since at least 3-10mm of liquid evaporate per day from open ponds, considerable quantities of fresh water will be required to prevent salt concentrations from rising.

It is currently unknown to what extent culture medium can be reused and what would be necessary to clean the waste water.

The land required for facilities of the size required may not be immediately usable for agriculture. However, the land is valuable to the population in the area. Infrequently used areas of land are often valuable habitats for rare and protected plants and animals.

In conclusion, it can be determined that at first glance, microalgae appear to be an attractive source of biomass. A more detailed consideration of energy requirements, however, indicates that the practice is not sustainable because of the negative energy balance associated with the production process.

Culture stability, media recycling and harvesting are still a significant challenge and require further research. Field demonstration projects are necessary to advance understanding the possible environmental risk of large scale microalgal monocultures.

Gerd Klöck

Professor of Bioprocess Engineering

Head of the Microalgal Biotechnology Group

University of Applied Sciences

Bremen

Germany.

Regarding ‘Algae: The ultimate biofuel‘:

Your section headed “no competition for land” ends by describing algae as “ending the potential for conflict with food production which comes with increased energy crop cultivation”.

We’d all like this to work, but let’s not get carried away. If this could work profitably there would be the incentive to do it anywhere that is readily accessible and with suitable amenities.

You can grow strawberries and tomatoes under greenhouses in the desert, but plenty are also grown under polytunnels and greenhouses on viable temperate farmland. So regulation of photobioreactor sites would also need to play a part.

Jim Roland

Regarding ‘EU policymaking: Rooted in science?‘:

I really do think that politicians will arguably look to their interests in winning votes before anything else. We can sadly translate this into he who better lobbies or markets his ideas the right way will decide the future (although this is unproven).

The ‘precautionary principle’ adds to this that responsibilities are not taken or even watered down, while stagnation of ideas and innovation spreads.

This goes together with the fact that today science is made out of consensus and not by proof, just like in the past with Galileo Galilei: he had proven his theory, but science was built on consensus between the pseudo-scientists of that time. Their theories had no proof but they all agreed in that Galileo was wrong.

Peter Lubrani

INECO