Great post ZS, I'm completely with you on this one; Algae Biofuels are a potencial fuel and waste problem solvers... This technology has to be supported by the governments just the same has the oil industry was when it first began. But there're also other effective sources for these, like sugar cane.. part of the bio-fuel failure in the US was the choice of maze as a ethanol fuel, which is a terrible option in terms of cost/benefit... I don't know how things are looking up in Sweden for example, weren't they launching a program to have 100% biofuel-only car market?

Have to agree about Gore. He is great at bringing GW down to human terms but his opinion on the effect man has on it is irrelevant. He put his money where his mouth is in investing in clean energy but he is not one of the scientists who worked their butt off to get real data to the govs quickly on the issue.

Even Bush admitted it. Its here and its real.

As for algae. most that are being selected are ones designed to grow prolifically in certain conditions. In nature where there is not as much Co2 PPM or perfect light conditions they would quickly die off. Risk is minimal. On top of that they are not using advanced versions of algae (The ones that produce toxins or the like) Just very simple ones that get fat on CO2 and sunlight.. Make oil reproduce and die.

We want to move away from food based biofuels completely. If you want to go the route of sunlight-starch-algae-diesel cycle there are certain types of algae that will consume even heavy materials like sawdust and crap grass without sunlight or Co2 to make lipids for fuels. It works but requires boatloads of material to make enough fuel because you are not utilizing energy from the sun or CO2 from smokestacks.