Difference between revisions of "Team:Macquarie Australia/Practices/ImpCompetitive"

NB: this is a work in progress - pics to be added & content to be divided into appropriate sub-menues.

Implementation Strategies:

• Overview
• Hydrogen Hero - Our competitive advantage
• Strategic Plan
• Key Opinion Leader (KOL) Engagement
• Prototype design
• Risk
• Vision/ Legacy

Technical

The environmental impact, security of supplies and an ever decreasing reserve of global fossil fuels offers undeniable justification to promoting research into renewable biofuel sources. In the United States alone in 2008, 37.1 quadrillion BTU of petroleum was utilised, of which 71% was used as fuel in the transportation industry (Connor, Atsumi. 2010). Due to its comparatively small population, Australia, despite its total global contribution being dwarfed compared to other countries, ranks extremely highly among global CO2 emissions per capita (see: figure 1).

Figure 1: 2014 Global CO2 emissions per capita between countries 1990 - 2013 (Olivier J., Maenhout G. J., et al 2014).

Theoretically inexhaustible while also non-polluting, hydrogen gas forms an obvious alternative fuel candidate, with feasible production being the major barrier to its wide-scale applications. While current hydrogen production (predominantly sourced from natural gas) has most traditionally been utilised in oil refining and ammonia production, this project seeks to expand upon these by widely applying it throughout the energy sector; including electricity production, fuel cell heating and even ignition within combustion engines. Multiple hydrogen production methods are commercially available today; the major examples being thermochemical methods in which hydrogen is derived from hydrocarbons, and electrolysis of water during which water is electrically split into its constituent elements; hydrogen and oxygen. In addition to these, alternate techniques have been the topic of investigation; including deriving hydrogen thermochemically from hydrocarbon feedstocks, advanced electrochemical routes to hydrogen production (Ogden 1999), and as in the case of this project, biological production.

Figure 2: Alternate hydrogen production methods. (Christopher, Dimitrios. 2012)

Oxygenic photosynthesis is the source of the energy used in producing most food and fuel sources on Earth, and photosystem II (PSII) is an essential and rate-limiting component of this process. By synthetically engineering this component inside E. coli, production of hydrogen gas for use as a renewable biofuel can be achieved. Utilisation of Hydrogen gas as a biofuel offers multiple advantages over other conventional fuel sources; particularly in that it is carbon neutral, non-toxic and automatically separates itself from a microbial culture (Savage, Way, Silver 2008).

Recently, the potential of algae has been revealed as an competitive, alternate biological ‘factory’ for the production of biofuels due to their rapid growth, easy genetic manipulation and safe and cost effective nature as hosts for expressing recombinant proteins. While this is certainly promising, optimization and processing technologies, and preventing abiotic stress exposure is still commercially difficult (Gimpel, Nour-Eldin et al. 2015). E. coli was selected for its competitive advantage over algae as a biological factory as it is ideal in a closed culture as in our generator system while also being easy to genetically manipulate and accompanied by a publicly accessible genome sequence.

Some traditional photo-bioreactor designs alternative to the hydrogen hero (see: prototype) are illustrated within figure 3.

Figure 3: Some traditional hydrogen production photo-bioreactor designs: (a) - Photo-bioreactor with gas recirculation (1: membrane gas pump), (2: gas collection bag), (3: two 1L pressure vessels), (4: pressure valve), (5: mass flow controller), (6: condenser), (7: pH/ redox electrode). (b) - Flat Panel Airlift (FPA) photo-bioreactor. (c) - Multi-tubular (tredici) photo-bioreactor. (d) - Modular outdoor photo-bioreactor. (Kapdan, Kargi. 2006)

Financial

With recent rises in the cost of petroleum alongside uncertainty regarding its limited quantity of reserves, biofuel research is gaining increasing relevance internationally. Unfortunately, the production costs associated with biofuels almost invariably exceeds those of fossil fuels, and as such, assistive factors such as tax exemptions or blending quotas are vital when considering financial viability. In contrast to this, fuel taxation forms a major part of government revenue, as it is significantly easier to implement and maintain compared to the likes of income tax. In fact, in many developing countries fuel taxation makes up ¼ of its total tax revenue (Peters, Thielmann. 2008). Other potential limiting factors such as land requirements for the fuels production, average yield (%), system boundaries (by-products) and transportation systems should also be carefully considered.

The cost of compression of hydrogen gas compared to natural gas is high, as approximately 3 times the compression power per unit of energy transmitted is needed to compress hydrogen, and the cost of compressors is around 20- 30% higher (Ogden 1999). Furthermore, the capital cost of hydrogen transmission pipelines is ~40% higher than natural gas (Ogden. 1999). This offers financial justification for the use of on-site generators and careful compression management, which further allows circumnavigation of many costly Australian fuel taxation laws.

However, a major factor that can promote preferential government treatment of biofuels is the abatement of green-house gases (GHG). This of course, requires that the production of the biofuel be economically viable for the internalisation of GHG emission costs. Böhringer C., Löschel A. (2002) calculated that the European Emissions Trading Scheme would abate $41 per tonne of GHG reduced. Furthermore, biogas can reduce the GHG emissions compared to petroleum and diesel by between 80% (when sourced from ley crops) to 180% (from liquid manure) (Mattiasson, Börjesson. 2008; Ryan et al. 2006). This indicates that substantial financial return could be attainable from this aspect of production when applied on a large scale, but cannot supplement stable financial foundations.

Figure 1: Motor fuel taxation compared to retail gasoline prices (cents/gallon) 1960 - 1996 (Goel, Nelson. 1999)

Figure 2: Nominal state motor fuel taxation (cents/gallon) 1960-1996 (Goel, Nelson. 1999)

Legal

DISCLAIMER: This document is not to be construed as general legal advice, rather it is a discourse on intellectual property within the context of the iGEM creative commons licence and a hypothetical commercial enterprize.

The iGEM Creative commons licence:

As stipulated in the registry licence terms (link*) all submitted biobricks fall under the “Sharealike” creative commons licence. Consistant with the iGEM ethos this allows complete freedom to share, modify and redistribute content so long as the original authors are acknowledged (cc*).

Pics Here!

Intellectual property and Commercial Synthetic Biology

Due to the significant risk and capital pertaining to investment in biotechnology industry, patents provide the necessary incentive that drives the multibillion dollar R&D sector. The landmark  Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics has posed a significant challenge for the future of this sector, the US supreme court rulling that isolated genes are natural products and therefore not patentable*USCHAMBER. In a somewhat contradictory ruling D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc & Anor an Australian supreme court (NSW) upheld the patent of the BRCA1 gene, this case is currently pending appeal in the High Court of Australia (The highest court of appeal in the country).

As the long term viability of patenting genetic material remains uncertain, the iGEM creative commons licence forces a future generation of synthetic biologists to come up with more creative ways to develop novel intellectual property.

What can be patented then? To approach this problem the Macquarie iGEM team has consulted with two independent patent lawyers who generously gave their time and insight into this topic.

?

First and foremost clear articulation of concept is extremely important in designing effective patent law. For this to be clear two fundamental questions must be answered: Is this novel? (Has it been done before, is this a genuinely new idea)
Is this inventive? (It actually needs to solve a problem and be useful)

Despite the uncertainty overhanging the pending Australian high court case, supreme courts are unified in the opinion that artificial genes and their products are patentable material.

iGEM registry of terms

Creative Commons License

USCHAMBER - Association for Molecular Pathology vs Myriad Genetics

References

• Böhringer C., Löschel A. (2002) Assessing the costs of compliance: The Kyoto Protocol. European Environment, 12 (1), 1 - 16.
• Christopher K., Dimitrios R. (2012) A review on exergy comparison of hydrogen production methods from renewable energy sources. Energy & Environmental Sciences, 5, 6640 - 6651.
• Connor M. R., Atsumi S. (2010) Synthetic Biology Guides Biofuel Production. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, 10, 1 - 9.
• Goel R. K., Nelson M. A. (1999) The Political Economy of Motor-Fuel Taxation. The Energy Journal 20(1), 45.
• Gimpel J. A., Nour-Eldin H. H., Scranton M. A., Li D., Mayfield S. P. (2015) Refactoring the Six-Gene Photosystem II Core in the Chloroplast of the Green Algae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. American Chemical Society: Synthetic Biology, 10(1), 1021.
• Kapdan I. K., Kargi F. (2006) Bio-hydrogen production from waste materials. Enzyme and Microbial technology, 38(5), 569 - 582.
• Mattiasson B, Börjesson P. (2008) Biogas as a resource-efficient vehicle fuel. Trends in Biotechnology, 26(1), 7-13
• Ogden J M. (1999) Prospects for building a hydrogen energy infrastructure. Annual review of energy and the environment, 24, 232 - 240.
• Olivier J., Maenhout G. J., Muntean M., Peters J. A. H. W. (2014) Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2014 Report. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 1, 24.
• Peters J., Thielmann S. (2008) Promoting Biofuels: Implications for developing countries. Energy Policy, 36(4), pp. 1538- 1539.
• Ryan L., Convery F., Ferreria S. (2006) Stimulating the use of biofuels in the European Union: implications for climate change policy. Energy Policy, 34, 3184 - 3194.
• Savage D. F., Way J., Silver P. A. (2008) Defossiling fuel: How Synthetic Biology Can Transform Biofuel Production. American Chemical Society: Chemical Biology, 3(1), 13.