Richard,
Beautifully articulate comment.  I think that years of cheap energy have deluded us into thinking that complacency is sustainable.  For better or worse, we are about to have much higher energy prices in the coming years as “Chindia” and its 2.5 billion people undergo their industrial revolutions coinciding with declining supplies of easily accessible light sweet crude oil.  With the continuing decline of the U.S. dollar, I would not be surprised to see oil prices north of $250/bbl by 2013.  If/when that occurs, the movement towards these advanced technologies will be further accelerated and positive feedback loops will emerge.
Although I agree with you that the real solution for our energy crisis would be to curtail our energy use, I think that it is not realistic.  People like their gadgets.  Unfortunately, humanity has not had to pay the true cost of the energy we consume (in the form of the negative externalities of increased health costs, climate change, etc).  Putting a price on carbon will be a very large first step in incentivizing energy efficiency.  I share with you the call to action and hope that humanity can see its interdepedence to the environment and each other before things get much worse…

James, to answer your question from before, it is not entirely clear which growth method will end up being “the winner.”  Some argue that for algae to truly displace other generations of biofuels, maximizing yields are essential.  PBRs are the only realistic way of getting the 5,000-10,000 gallons/acre/year quantities.  That being said, the costs for PBRs are somewhere around $25/gal.  Most of the costs are associated with harvesting, dewatering, and extraction.  Whether these costs can come down substantially is an unknown.  Open ponds, on the other hand, have much lower upfront capital costs because, in theory, the pond (or water medium) already exists. The yields for open ponds is somewhere in the 1,500-2,000gal/acre/year range and could be higher with genetic modification. The problem is that the open pond can be subject to evaporative losses, efficiency loses due to lack of optimal photosynthesis (sunlight’s photosynthetic value decreases each inch below the surface), invasive species, and temperature/light fluctuations in accordance of the specific environment that the pond is located.  Note that there are many different types of “open ponds” that range from a “raceway” design (see the Israeli company Seambiotic) to ponds that have roofs (to prevent evaporation), to companies who are attempting to produce fuel from algal blooms that occur in the ocean. 

James, you are correct that invasive species is one of the biggest challenges with open ponds.  The other challenges are working with the season and diurnal elements.  Whereas a PBR can theoretically provide light 24/7, an open pond in Southern California may have sunlight 9 hours a day in the winter.  If you combine the photosynthetic losses that occur if the pond is more than one foot deep, you can see why open ponds are not an ideal solution for maximizing lipid yields.  The invasive species issue is significant.  I went to a conference recently where the CTO for Synthetic Genomics was talking about genetically modifying a super-strain of algae that could kill anything that gets in its way.  That would be a scary proposition if this Franken-Algae ever slipped into the natural ecoystem.

Roadtrip,
My information that ethanol is corrosive to pipelines and has an affinity to water is based from the Department of Energy’s “Energy Information Administration” official Federal and State Ethanol and Biodiesel Requirements:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ethanol.html
I appreciate that you have been involved with “more than one test” and perhaps you could take this issue up with the DOE, as apparently, they are not a sufficient research source

DC Perspective, I expected that when I wrote this piece, that I would be attacked from those within the corn ethanol industry who troll blogs to respond with their own official propaganda.  Similar to how Fox News always has a “scientist” commentator who disputes Climate Change, your comments are clearly ideological.  I will attempt to invoke reason and provide links so we can return this to a thoughtful discourse.

Fact: The USDA estimates that 12.8 billion bushels of corn will be produced in 2009 on 80 million acres.  4.2 billion bushels of that corn will be used to produce ethanol .
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5917

Your comment that the corn used for ethanol production is not human grade is one of semantics.  The fact that the corn used for ethanol is now genetically modified to enhance ethanol yields and create co-products does not negate the fact that roughly 26 million acres of U.S. cropland will be used to grow corn used for ethanol.  According to the USDA, the U.S. has a total cropland of 321 million acres.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2009/06_30_2009.asp

Thus, we can say that corn grown for ethanol uses 8.1% of total U.S. cropland.  If we did not have to grow corn for ethanol, we could use that land to grow corn, wheat, soy, or any other crop for humans.  In light of these statistics, it is hard to take your comment seriously that the “food vs. fuel” controversy is merely a myth.

With regard to your comment about subsidies, I would invite you to dig a little deeper and see that the $0.45/gal tax that we put on imported Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is a de facto subsidy to U.S. corn ethanol industry.  Simply put, the import duty on Brazilian ethanol, insulates U.S. producers and provides an artificial margin cushion.  Unfortunately, our political leaders have decided that imported oil from Saudi Arabia is preferable to imported Brazilian ethanol.   I would imagine that if Congress were to repeal on the Brazilian tax, your constituents in the corn ethanol lobby would cry foul.

One area that I agree with you is the importance of the 5% of U.S. gasoline consumption that corn ethanol displaces.  I didn’t mean to completely throw corn ethanol under the bus in this article.  Given extremely tight and inelastic oil supplies in 2008, the amount of gasoline that ethanol displaced — albeit modest — was still important in preventing us from seeing oil prices well above $150/bbl. 

“DC Perspective”, it is very easy to attack people anonymously on the internet and claim that they are “uniformed” and do not have “insight.”  I have no allegiance to any generation of biofuel technology. I just call it as I see it.  I would invite you to come out from the veil of anonymity and tell us who you are and who you represent.  

Richard,
Beautifully articulate comment.  I think that years of cheap energy have deluded us into thinking that complacency is sustainable.  For better or worse, we are about to have much higher energy prices in the coming years as “Chindia” and its 2.5 billion people undergo their industrial revolutions coinciding with declining supplies of easily accessible light sweet crude oil.  With the continuing decline of the U.S. dollar, I would not be surprised to see oil prices north of $250/bbl by 2013.  If/when that occurs, the movement towards these advanced technologies will be further accelerated and positive feedback loops will emerge.
Although I agree with you that the real solution for our energy crisis would be to curtail our energy use, I think that it is not realistic.  People like their gadgets.  Unfortunately, humanity has not had to pay the true cost of the energy we consume (in the form of the negative externalities of increased health costs, climate change, etc).  Putting a price on carbon will be a very large first step in incentivizing energy efficiency.  I share with you the call to action and hope that humanity can see its interdepedence to the environment and each other before things get much worse…

James, to answer your question from before, it is not entirely clear which growth method will end up being “the winner.”  Some argue that for algae to truly displace other generations of biofuels, maximizing yields are essential.  PBRs are the only realistic way of getting the 5,000-10,000 gallons/acre/year quantities.  That being said, the costs for PBRs are somewhere around $25/gal.  Most of the costs are associated with harvesting, dewatering, and extraction.  Whether these costs can come down substantially is an unknown.  Open ponds, on the other hand, have much lower upfront capital costs because, in theory, the pond (or water medium) already exists. The yields for open ponds is somewhere in the 1,500-2,000gal/acre/year range and could be higher with genetic modification. The problem is that the open pond can be subject to evaporative losses, efficiency loses due to lack of optimal photosynthesis (sunlight’s photosynthetic value decreases each inch below the surface), invasive species, and temperature/light fluctuations in accordance of the specific environment that the pond is located.  Note that there are many different types of “open ponds” that range from a “raceway” design (see the Israeli company Seambiotic) to ponds that have roofs (to prevent evaporation), to companies who are attempting to produce fuel from algal blooms that occur in the ocean. 

James, you are correct that invasive species is one of the biggest challenges with open ponds.  The other challenges are working with the season and diurnal elements.  Whereas a PBR can theoretically provide light 24/7, an open pond in Southern California may have sunlight 9 hours a day in the winter.  If you combine the photosynthetic losses that occur if the pond is more than one foot deep, you can see why open ponds are not an ideal solution for maximizing lipid yields.  The invasive species issue is significant.  I went to a conference recently where the CTO for Synthetic Genomics was talking about genetically modifying a super-strain of algae that could kill anything that gets in its way.  That would be a scary proposition if this Franken-Algae ever slipped into the natural ecoystem.

Roadtrip,
My information that ethanol is corrosive to pipelines and has an affinity to water is based from the Department of Energy’s “Energy Information Administration” official Federal and State Ethanol and Biodiesel Requirements:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ethanol.html
I appreciate that you have been involved with “more than one test” and perhaps you could take this issue up with the DOE, as apparently, they are not a sufficient research source

DC Perspective, I expected that when I wrote this piece, that I would be attacked from those within the corn ethanol industry who troll blogs to respond with their own official propaganda.  Similar to how Fox News always has a “scientist” commentator who disputes Climate Change, your comments are clearly ideological.  I will attempt to invoke reason and provide links so we can return this to a thoughtful discourse.

Fact: The USDA estimates that 12.8 billion bushels of corn will be produced in 2009 on 80 million acres.  4.2 billion bushels of that corn will be used to produce ethanol .
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5917

Your comment that the corn used for ethanol production is not human grade is one of semantics.  The fact that the corn used for ethanol is now genetically modified to enhance ethanol yields and create co-products does not negate the fact that roughly 26 million acres of U.S. cropland will be used to grow corn used for ethanol.  According to the USDA, the U.S. has a total cropland of 321 million acres.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2009/06_30_2009.asp

Thus, we can say that corn grown for ethanol uses 8.1% of total U.S. cropland.  If we did not have to grow corn for ethanol, we could use that land to grow corn, wheat, soy, or any other crop for humans.  In light of these statistics, it is hard to take your comment seriously that the “food vs. fuel” controversy is merely a myth.

With regard to your comment about subsidies, I would invite you to dig a little deeper and see that the $0.45/gal tax that we put on imported Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is a de facto subsidy to U.S. corn ethanol industry.  Simply put, the import duty on Brazilian ethanol, insulates U.S. producers and provides an artificial margin cushion.  Unfortunately, our political leaders have decided that imported oil from Saudi Arabia is preferable to imported Brazilian ethanol.   I would imagine that if Congress were to repeal on the Brazilian tax, your constituents in the corn ethanol lobby would cry foul.

One area that I agree with you is the importance of the 5% of U.S. gasoline consumption that corn ethanol displaces.  I didn’t mean to completely throw corn ethanol under the bus in this article.  Given extremely tight and inelastic oil supplies in 2008, the amount of gasoline that ethanol displaced — albeit modest — was still important in preventing us from seeing oil prices well above $150/bbl. 

“DC Perspective”, it is very easy to attack people anonymously on the internet and claim that they are “uniformed” and do not have “insight.”  I have no allegiance to any generation of biofuel technology. I just call it as I see it.  I would invite you to come out from the veil of anonymity and tell us who you are and who you represent.