Hello everyone,

I am very new in this forum.I have read much articles in recent days.It looks like commercialy producing algae oil is still a problem.I have surf much fuel comapny website,but it looks like they need investors to put money in their company,and all the figures they have published is only the ideal figure.At moment,none of those companys can really commercialy produce so much algae oil.It looks like most companys are still in R&D stage.

I am wondering if algae oil viable for biofuel. 

 

Hiya babymaus,

To best answer your question...you need to get out a piece of paper and pen and a calculator.

What is the output of a field of algae? = tops...15000 gal of algoil/acre/year. Lets use the 10$/gal just to be safe. = $150,000/year revenues.

What does it cost to produce the algae? = ~ 50% cost of production to collect/de-water/de-oil/etc...  So if we have $150,000 in revenues...we have only $75,000/acre/year net revenues after production costs.

What does it cost to build an algae farm? = 43560 sqft / acre. Lets say 20$/sq ft to build and maintain a greenhouse complex / year. = $871200/acre/year to build and maintain the greenhouses.

So lets add up the numbers... We will make $75,000/year and it will cost us $871,200/year to produce the algae.

As you can simply see...there is no way that algoil can ever make it...even at $10/gallon. Even @ $20/gal. Even at $100/gal...

Moral of the story?   pen and paper is always the best way to check up on internet stories.

 

Hello,

I am also new here, desperately trying to get a realistic opinion on the feasibility of biodiesel production using algae.

So I found for instance this presentation proving the cost-efficiency of algaculture:
http://www.ee.calpoly.edu/~jharris/courses/563s05/Group1_Algae_and_Biodiesel.ppt

So Froggy what is(are) basically their mistake(s) ?

Sincerely yours,

Christelle  

bsam:

Hello,

I am also new here, desperately trying to get a realistic opinion on the feasibility of biodiesel production using algae.

So I found for instance this presentation proving the cost-efficiency of algaculture:
http://www.ee.calpoly.edu/~jharris/courses/563s05/Group1_Algae_and_Biodiesel.ppt

So Froggy what is(are) basically their mistake(s) ?

Sincerely yours,

Christelle  

UNH Mike Briggs is a frequent guest here and maybe he could talk directly about this group and its plan. Curious how everyone quotes his paper...

Also...my above statement is # based on PBR...a very expensive upfront cost unit. I have no doubt that PBR's are by far too expensive upfront to ever come close to being a reality, as I have shown above. Dont believe me...do the numbers yourself.

As to this group in particular...they are using open raceways...a much more realistic approach IMO. I'll just comment on some interesting statements;

• up to 70% of algae is usable oil...?
• They are almost exclusively discussing Bb for a species.
• They are being general with the slide "Where to grow it". There are many pieces in that slide that are not trivial, yet they are not going thru them with numbers or specific recommendations on the HOW part. 
• Under the slide "feasability', they come to some conclusions that are 'spin' on what really happened. Also...read the NREL paper they suggest for yourself, I dont think you can have a reasonable understanding of the whole algoil thing without reading that report in full and the papers doing meta analysis based on it.
• Also...they are substituting the Bb spp for the species NREL used and assuming simular growth rates. I dont know much about Bb because Im more focused on the green algae but certainly 30g/m2/day is a monumental #, not something to be just thrown around.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Luis_Obispo,_California   this is the climate for San Luis Obisop. Notice the high/low...then notice the temp range for Bb?  where is the heating cost? or better yet...HOW?
• I would agree with the next 2 slides quote NREL... This  is important to understand. 
• Assuming .10/gal profit slide is interesting...20 years before profit? who is going to fund that? and look at the red/black line...jeeze...we will have fusion moon miners by 2040...who in their right mind would fund these number?
• Hexane is expensive. Notice the other method only got 70% of the oil out...IMO that is an overly aggressive number...should be 50% tops.
• Notice they never once talk about collection AND de-watering the algae before processing...just a few numbers in the spreadsheet. These 2 items are NOT trivial...
• Notice there is no talk of NOx or how they are going to deal with that issue post selling the algoil?
• Conclusion slide is a huge leap of faith based on the set of highly optimistic or downright spin assumptions they put forward in the presentation.
• As to the slides on 'Cost per hectare' is very hard to believe. Site prep = 6k/ha? comon... Land cost of 2000/ha? Building costs of 4500/ha???? IMO...this is where the rubber hits the road and this page would have to be vetted in the real world...in situ. Get these 2 slides right and the rest is simple math.
• #25 and #26 I dont get. They say it will cost $241/mt for the biomass but only cost 69$ for the oil? how can that be correct?
• Lastly but not at all leastly...30g/m2/day is very hard to believe...60 is crazytalk given our current understanding. A much more realistic # is 10g/m2/day and @ 10g would be a monumental achievement to yield that much commercially.

What can I say...Im highly skeptical. As an investor...you had better be or a fool and his money are easily parted. Want a case study...look up USSE. The real proof for me is that no one is actually accomplishing anything when it comes to algoil. If someone ever does...there will be plenty of time to jump on the bandwagon as an investor. Show me a prototype that works...not just utilize other's research (poor Mike), throw a bunch of assumptions together and assume you can do things in the real world.

By the way, I dont want anyone to think Im calling anyone a lyer or thief, Im saying that im skeptical of coming thru on claims being made. Show me a scaled proof...like all other new technology needs before I invest in your company.

 

A lot of the difference is the California study looks to be based on  using an open pond. Froggy is basing his on  using a covered pond.

I own view is that biodiesel from algae is viable. As far as investing a someones company, I'd only invest what I could afford to lose. Some of the reasons being:

1. Many are small startup companies. Very often that means 1 person is the sole driving force. If that person is removed, run over by a truck or something, that is the end of any possibility of company being successful.

2. There is a good chance that some of these companies are better at selling stock in trendy market than they are at creating a viable business.  

3. At any point in time the alternative liquid fuel situation can change. An examples would be a breakthrough in some other method.

 

Martin 

   

froggy:

Hiya babymaus,

To best answer your question...you need to get out a piece of paper and pen and a calculator.

What is the output of a field of algae? = tops...15000 gal of algoil/acre/year. Lets use the 10$/gal just to be safe. = $150,000/year revenues.

What does it cost to produce the algae? = ~ 50% cost of production to collect/de-water/de-oil/etc...  So if we have $150,000 in revenues...we have only $75,000/acre/year net revenues after production costs.

What does it cost to build an algae farm? = 43560 sqft / acre. Lets say 20$/sq ft to build and maintain a greenhouse complex / year. = $871200/acre/year to build and maintain the greenhouses.

So lets add up the numbers... We will make $75,000/year and it will cost us $871,200/year to produce the algae.

As you can simply see...there is no way that algoil can ever make it...even at $10/gallon. Even @ $20/gal. Even at $100/gal...

Moral of the story?   pen and paper is always the best way to check up on internet stories.

And now for the democratic (as in multiple points of view, not political parties) response.

Froggy and I are on the opposite sides of this issue.  IMHO we simply do not know enough yet about realizable real world algal bio-d production cost to be guessing at numbers the way froggy is.

In short, he's pulling the numbers he uses out of his @ss because they are based on the logical fallacy of domain transference.  That is to say he thinks that costs in other fields are good indicators of what costs will be in algal biodiesel production.  He has yet to prove the transference hypothesis or to prove his numbers are representative of any modern real world algal biodiesel production facility.  ...and there definitely are indications that he is wrong.

My POV is that we simply do not know enough yet.  Froggy may be right.  But for all his sometimes blustering rhetoric he can't prove it.  And ATM no one else can prove much one way or the other either.

Pen and paper is !NOT! the best way to check up on things in a ill-understood field.  Experiments are.  

Hello,

Am I right, if I see here a huge vicious circle ?
Investments and significant advances in the field will only occur if proper experiments are performed which is only possible with sufficient investments.

Again, the only outcome I see is wide-scale cooperation...at least for a while.

I agree with Voltaire that some figures given by Froggy seem to be rather speculations or better said, dependent on too many external parameters to be objectively evaluated so directly (overall cost of the algae production, maintenance of a "greenhouse complex"...).

On the other hand, other parameters which apparently have not been determined yet (and whose importance is also significant as highlighted by Froggy), should, with wide-scale and proper experiments and research, be measurable with a relative high reliability, shouldn't them ? I think for instance of the oil output of a field of algae given the known input parameters, the percentage of usable oil from a strain, etc.

So my point is that if all the serious experiments already existing or currently performed on algae (and there seem to be quite a lot hanging around, actually) could be registered all together in a global database and in a unified format, then all the powerful data processing features and new data-mining technologies could be applied to deduce general results which, without of course being 100% reliable, would certainly have a bit more consistency than those obtained by observing one's single improvised soda-bottle algafarm or by taking "a pencil and a sheet of paper"...

That's just an idea, I would be quite interested to know if other people see outcomes for the current counter-productive situation...

Sincerely yours,
Christelle  

Voltaire:

   In short, he's pulling the numbers he uses out of his @ss because they are based on the logical fallacy of domain transference.  That is to say he thinks that costs in other fields are good indicators of what costs will be in algal biodiesel production.  He has yet to prove the transference hypothesis or to prove his numbers are representative of any modern real world algal biodiesel production facility.  ...and there definitely are indications that he is wrong.

lol...the logical fallacy of domain transference?  Can I ask you where you made that up from? Its not in the formal or informal list that i could find. Here I'll post those links also...along with all the other links that Ive posted about the information that I have been providing (vs just having opinions with nothing but 'i believe' or 'wait and see...you will be suprised') http://www.beige.org/~gltweasl/fallacy.html       http://www.fallacyfiles.org/formfall.html 

My friend Voltaire is correct about democratic rhetoric, the beauty of democracy is that one can fact check ones record. I think I have listed my math...what more can I do. A democracy gets the govenment it deserves and so do investors.

Im curious as to why others think that an industry as robust as the greenhouse industry isnt a good 'domain transference' (snicker)? Seems like a pretty logical place to start, eh? Do they have any other suggestions as to pricing? The greenhouse industry is huge. You would think they would be smart enough to have the state of the art in technology and economics, wouldnt ya? Its mighty bold of a statement to just casually throw out data because it doesnt fit your gestalt.

I agree that I cannot prove a negative because that, ofcourse, is a true logical fallacy  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof   Nor has anyone proved the positive from the 1930's on...even tho many have tried. As the last wiki states...the burden of proof is on those who think they can produce algoil. Im not saying you cant do it...im saying you cannot do it economically.

"...and there definitely are indications that he is wrong." Care to share what those indications are?

Christelle,

I agree we need to collect data from everyone's experiments.  I don't even think it is necesary to have global databases, a unified format, powerful data processing, or data mining.  All of those would be desirable and helpful.  But, if we can get people to report what they have done and what the results were - even if the results were negative - we can benefit from each other's effort and move the field forward.

This forum or others, wikis, or discussion groups can be used to record these results.  Theoretically, forums or wikis would be best, but any recording method could be used.

Let's do it.

 

 

bsam:

Am I right, if I see here a huge vicious circle ?
Investments and significant advances in the field will only occur if proper experiments are performed which is only possible with sufficient investments.

This is why boot strapping is important.  You invest relatively small amounts for relatively small experiments like those Ecogenics, Greenfuel Technologies, Solix Biofuels, etc are presently doing and as we learn more we invest more for larger scale and more complex experiments.

...and comparatively speaking, algal biodiesel has gotten a pittance of funding.  Too little to carry out the critical initial scale experiments so that we have real evidence to base conclusions on or to choose future directions.

froggy:

lol...the logical fallacy of domain transference?  Can I ask you where you made that up from? Its not in the formal or informal list that i could find.

It has other names.  There are two basic forms.

A= The fallacious belief that expertise in one field automatically confers expertise on another.  Another name for this one is "Noam Chomsky Disease".  Chomsky was a linguist.  A very good one.  Then he started claiming to be an expert in all sort of other fields because "all human politics / economics / foo are based on liguistists.  Since I am expert in that, I am expert in these as well.".  Doesn't work that way.

B= The fallacious belief that what happens in one field can be applied to make logical conclusions in another field due to some (non existent) supposed universal law or principle.  Again, it usually doesn't work that way.

Essentially either form of the fallacy is based on the Myth of Context Independence.  

Unfortunately, knowledge is far more context dependent than is often believed.  Unless one has a proof of mathermatical rigor to map one field to another (such as when mathematicians prove that a computer science problem is analogous to a known NP Complete problem), conclusions specific to one field are =VERY= hard to justify as being equally valid in a different field.

Algae are not land based plants.  Algae do not need the support structures, environmental robustnes, translocation budget, etc, etc, that land based plants do.  Algae can be harvested continuously in a manner that land based plants can not be.  Algae can grow in conditions that are far less difficult to set up and maintain than land based plants can.  Algae are capable of turning far more of their total biomass into oil than any land based plant.  And on and on and on.

Making claims about the ultimate costs of algae raising based on the raising of land based plants =at a minimum= would require corrections for all of the above.  Even if you could do that (unlikely given the history of failures in such attempts in other fields), you still have the Flocking Behavior Problem and the Law of Unintended Consequences problem.

We may very well find out that raising algae economically is not possible.  But claiming we have enough evidence at this time to make such a conclusion is premature.   

Froggy is showing his nay sayer side again. Without factual production figures it is impossible to judge the ROI on any bio diesel facility - race way or PBR.

There are some who believe that a PBR system, well tuned and well managed, will produce several magnitudes more than the current theoretical 57 000 litres / acre/year.

There is no need to get into another argument on this topic because it has been talked to death on several other threads and forums. There are currently no facts to support anybodies projections.

I have said it before and will say it again, be patient and wait for those of us doing research to publish our results or else get out there and invest your money in your own future business and do your own experiments - I am.

Slippery:

I have said it before and will say it again, be patient and wait for those of us doing research to publish our results or else get out there and invest your money in your own future business and do your own experiments - I am.

over 50 years of research isnt enough for you all eh? I guess all of those botanist, phycologist and bacteriologist in the past were idiots eh? You guys doing experiments in your back yards using your own money are much better equipped than all of those PhD's eh? The jury must still be out because YOUR experiments arnt completed yet eh? Slippery et al are going to actually PUBLISH their research in a peer reviewed report eh?

 

Voltaire:

   

froggy:

lol...the logical fallacy of domain transference?  Can I ask you where you made that up from? Its not in the formal or informal list that i could find.

It has other names.  There are two basic forms.

A= The fallacious belief that expertise in one field automatically confers expertise on another.  Another name for this one is "Noam Chomsky Disease".  Chomsky was a linguist.  A very good one.  Then he started claiming to be an expert in all sort of other fields because "all human politics / economics / foo are based on liguistists.  Since I am expert in that, I am expert in these as well.".  Doesn't work that way.

B= The fallacious belief that what happens in one field can be applied to make logical conclusions in another field due to some (non existent) supposed universal law or principle.  Again, it usually doesn't work that way.

Essentially either form of the fallacy is based on the Myth of Context Independence.  

 

froggy:

Im curious, do you have any references to these new fallacies you are coming up with. Having spent a fair number of years in the persuit of philosophical truth's...I never came accross any of these names you bring up. And its funny that google doesnt either. Jargon matters, even if it doesnt matter to you or others.

Unfortunately, knowledge is far more context dependent than is often believed.  Unless one has a proof of mathermatical rigor to map one field to another (such as when mathematicians prove that a computer science problem is analogous to a known NP Complete problem), conclusions specific to one field are =VERY= hard to justify as being equally valid in a different field.

 

froggy:

So...all of those phycologists were/are not qualified to make a judgement? Nor are botanists? Yet...Voltaire is? Im curious...what is your profession, Voltaire? What makes Voltaire so qualified that all of these 'myths' and 'logical fallacies' dont apply to you?

And adding to this line of reasoning...what makes you think that anyone but the most rigorous phycologists are able to contribute anything to this conversation? Which means that Slippery and Liberty are out because they dont know enough to be important to the conversation. Certainly there experiments mean not because they cannot transfer their knowledge away from their lives to the expertise of algae. Which means that you are out unless ofc you have your PhD in phycology...are you? So...given this line of reasoning...what gives you any voice here at all? What makes you so smart that you can determine that algoil is a valid theory that should be pursued?

 

Voltaire:

  Algae are not land based plants.  Algae do not need the support structures, environmental robustnes, translocation budget, etc, etc, that land based plants do.  Algae can be harvested continuously in a manner that land based plants can not be.  Algae can grow in conditions that are far less difficult to set up and maintain than land based plants can.  Algae are capable of turning far more of their total biomass into oil than any land based plant.  And on and on and on.

Hydroponics are not landbased. Algae DO NEED support structures, environmental robustness, translocation budget, etc,etc that is DIFFERENT than land based plants and very likely MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE. Many greenhouses have a continuous harvesting that is completely mechanical. You are insane to believe that algae can grow in conditions that are far less difficult to set up and maintain than land based plants, it shows how little you know about what you are talking about. I wont doubt that algae can be made up of alot of oil but big deal...its locked away in a ratio of 1g/1liter of water...which makes it much more difficult and expensive to collect/process than...oh...lets say palmfruit.

Froggy,

Remember the old saying "Do you have 20 years of experience or 1 year of experience 20 times?"  or the one "You seem to know a lot about computer games.  What do you know about computers?"

The problem is exactly that there has not been 50 years of active well funded research research done by our best and brightest (or even a relatively large contingent of the competent) in the field of algal biodiesel.

Compared to traditional agriculture research, ethanol research, coal liquification / gasification research, even solar research, let alone the huge chunk of change spent on Nuclear or traditional petroleum research, the state of knowledge in algal biodiesel is near ignorant.

I once asked for a comparative list of the forms of algae that Man has thus far raised in terms of their standard lifecycle, optimum environment, and body product yields under normal and environmental conditions designed to increase % body fat per individual.

I was told there was no such list.  That there wasn't enough knowledge to generate such a list.  And that if there ever was enough knowledge to generate such a list, it would most likely be under lock and key and considered a proprietary secret.

I can go look up this sort of information, and more, on corn, soy, wheat, etc etc.  This stuff is the basics.  We have to know the basics before we can talk about optimum process engineering or breeding / modding better stock or any number of things we would ordinarily take for granted as valid research goals for any other agricultural crop.

...and in this woeful state of ignorance, you want to claim we actually understand algal biodiesel production well enough to responsibly evaluate its ultimate economic potential?

You can't.  I can't.  No one can at this point. 

Voltaire:

Froggy,

Remember the old saying "Do you have 20 years of experience or 1 year of experience 20 times?"  or the one "You seem to know a lot about computer games.  What do you know about computers?"

The problem is exactly that there has not been 50 years of active well funded research research done by our best and brightest (or even a relatively large contingent of the competent) in the field of algal biodiesel.

Compared to traditional agriculture research, ethanol research, coal liquification / gasification research, even solar research, let alone the huge chunk of change spent on Nuclear or traditional petroleum research, the state of knowledge in algal biodiesel is near ignorant.

I once asked for a comparative list of the forms of algae that Man has thus far raised in terms of their standard lifecycle, optimum environment, and body product yields under normal and environmental conditions designed to increase % body fat per individual.

I was told there was no such list.  That there wasn't enough knowledge to generate such a list.  And that if there ever was enough knowledge to generate such a list, it would most likely be under lock and key and considered a proprietary secret.

I can go look up this sort of information, and more, on corn, soy, wheat, etc etc.  This stuff is the basics.  We have to know the basics before we can talk about optimum process engineering or breeding / modding better stock or any number of things we would ordinarily take for granted as valid research goals for any other agricultural crop.

...and in this woeful state of ignorance, you want to claim we actually understand algal biodiesel production well enough to responsibly evaluate its ultimate economic potential?

You can't.  I can't.  No one can at this point. 

The reason is...it doesnt make economic sense so no one does it. I know this is a hard concept for you to get but there is a difference between technically ability and economic ability.

If you don't understand something, you can't logically or responsibly evaluate its potential.  Economic or otherwise.

"But Mr Faraday, of what use is this electricity stuff?" "Madam, of what use is a baby?"

That's about where we are knowledge-wise with algal biodiesel.

Your attitude is akin to grounding the Wright Brothers because you wanted jets and could not see them in the Kitty Hawk.

Ok lets see what we know.

• We know Benemann's distaste for the idea that algoil is viable, certainly in the case of PBR's.
• We know the cost of greenhouse systems that have been around for 100's of years. 
• We know the cost of hydroponic systems around the world.
• We know what the Spirulina industry uses for pricing of their algae, in the 100's of $ per lb range. 
• We know they have been trying to grow algae for $ for more than 100 years, with little to no success.
• We have 100's and 100's of technical papers that talk about various aspects of algae. Likely thousands. Every major University in the world has a Phycology Dept and most Botany Dept. will have a Phycologist in even small and midrange Universities.
• We know that NREL had to shut down because of this statement;  

The high cost of algae production remains an obstacle.  

The cost analyses for large-scale microalgae production evolved from rather superficial analyses in the 1970s to the much more detailed and sophisticated studies conducted during the 1980s. A major conclusion from these analyses is that there is little prospect for any alternatives to the open pond designs, given the low cost requirements associated with fuel production. The factors that most influence cost are biological, and not engineering-related. These analyses point to the need for highly productive organisms capable of near-theoretical levels of conversion of sunlight to biomass. Even with aggressive assumptions about biological productivity, we project costs for biodiesel which are two times higher than current petroleum diesel fuel costs.

• We know that Greenfuels and all the other 'algae to xyz' startups of recent have not produced anywhere near their claims.
• We know that no one has solved the 'weed algae' issue.
• We know the theoretical yield limits and they are much much less than other mechanical solar energy harvesting like PV, solar heating CSP.
• We know that a GMO'ed alga would need years and years of development before it could be widespread (if ever).
• We know that ICE is ~ 25-30% efficient and has been that way for a long time.
• We know that nano-particles and NOx issues of algoil + ICE have not been vetted which will take additional years.
• We know that every other ROI viable renewable energy system produces KWH's as its main focus. 
• We all agree that KWH's from PV, fusion, etc will be our eventual future. 

 

Remind me again why I want to invest in an algoil company?  

  

 

froggy:

Ok lets see what we know.

Fair Enough.

We know Benemann's distaste for the idea that algoil is viable, certainly in the case of PBR's.

Based on the context of the ASP program.  =One= study.  And one that did not extensively experiment with PBR design at that.  One data point does not a curve or trend make, and where algae PBR's are concerned we are really woefully ignorant.

We know the cost of greenhouse systems that have been around for 100's of years.

...and that they have little or nothing provably to do with raising algae at this point.

We know the cost of hydroponic systems around the world.

Not for algae we don't.

We know what the Spirulina industry uses for pricing of their algae, in the 100's of $ per lb range.

Capitalism is about charging what the market will bear.  IOW, maximizing your profit per transactions.  The Spirulina industry does not have the cost and price structure of the fuel industry.

We know they have been trying to grow algae for $ for more than 100 years, with little to no success.

Who are "they"?  How are / were they trying to make money?  Evidence that we've been trying to make algal fuel for 100's of years? 

We have 100's and 100's of technical papers that talk about various aspects of algae. Likely thousands. Every major University in the world has a Phycology Dept and most Botany Dept. will have a Phycologist in even small and
midrange Universities.

...and yet we still know less about algae than we do about corn...

We know that NREL had to shut down because of this statement; 

The high cost of algae production remains an obstacle.  

The cost analyses for large-scale microalgae production evolved from rather \
superficial analyses in the 1970s to the much more detailed and sophisticated
studies conducted during the 1980s. A major conclusion from these analyses is
that there is little prospect for any alternatives to the open pond designs,
given the low cost requirements associated with fuel production. The factors
that most influence cost are biological, and not engineering-related. These
analyses point to the need for highly productive organisms capable of near-
theoretical levels of conversion of sunlight to biomass. Even with aggressive
assumptions about biological productivity,
we project costs for biodiesel which are 2x higher than current petroleum
diesel fuel costs

=NO=.  NREL was shut down mostly because of politics.  Basic research is not supposed to be driven by cost considerations.  That's why it's called "basic research" and not "product development."

Now look at the bolded part of their conclusion.  They projected bio-d costs 2x higher than current costs of dino-d as of the writing of that conclusion. Note how much dino-d has gone up in price since then.  Note how much dino-d is likely to increase in price in the next 10 years.  Or 20.

Your own source projects price parity at 2x the prices of when it was written.   Just about every reputable indicator is projecting at least 10x increases in crude oil prices within 20 years of when that conclusion was written.  If the NREL conclusion is correct, not only is profitable bio-d possible, it is inevitable.

We know that Greenfuels and all the other 'algae to xyz' startups of recent have not produced anywhere near their claims.

This one is complicated.  GT is not primarily in the business of producing algae byproducts.  Their core business is in cleaning pollution.  Make this comment about Solix Biofuels or about Ecogenics (if they fail to deliver) and I agree.
...and GT's failure seems to have been that they had =too much= success growing algae and could not control it.  Not that they could not grow it.

We know that no one has solved the 'weed algae' issue.

The primary reason for going from open to closed systems is to solve this.

We know the theoretical yield limits and they are much much less than other mechanical solar energy harvesting like PV, solar heating CSP.

...and are much better than any other renewable liquid fuel presently known or theorized.

This one is a red herring since it would require violating the laws of thermodynamics for =any= liquid fuel to be more energy efficient over its entire lifecycle than more primary forms of energy production, transport, or storage.

The main point remains that bio-d is the most efficient portable energy storage mechanism we know of.  Unless or until battery technology catches up both in capability and economics.  Or some as of yet unknown possibility becomes real.

We know that a GMO'ed alga would need years and years of development before it could be widespread (if ever).

BS.  Certainly some mods require more effort than others.  Some mods are likely impossible.  But to make a blanket statement of this type is misleading and irresponsible.

We know that ICE is ~ 25-30% efficient and has been that way for a long time.

No.  The =gasoline= spark induced ICE has these values.  Diesels are already ~2x more efficient than that.  ECE's like rotary stirling engines are even better.

We know that nano-particles and NOx issues of algoil + ICE have not been vetted which will take additional years.

More red herrings.  Nano particles are a new research interest.  We don't "know" much about them at all.  Systems exist that can reduce NOX emissions to almost zero if we use them.

We know that every other ROI viable renewable energy system produces KWH's as its main focus.

That's because as of yet there are =no= ROI viable renewable energy systems in the transportation sector.  Another red herring.

We all agree that KWH's from PV, fusion, etc will be our eventual future.

Really?  That telepathy working well for you?  Dissent from me.  I think it is =likely= that such is our future.  I call it far from a sure thing.  Especially in my remaining lifetime.

Remind me again why I want to invest in an algoil company?

Because if it works, it works big. 

Like any other infant field, it is a more risky investment than a Blue Chip.  OTOH, so are the ROI's if it works.  Like
any other investment, one has to make sure that the risks one takes fit your tolerance for risk.