Those are your words, so, in light of the facts in the article, to wit:
Yet, despite its benefits and growing popularity, biodiesel might not be the fuel of the future because, as demand grows, the amount of land needed to produce the oils could become untenable, experts say.
and,
They're focusing primarily on four types of high-oil algae.....that could be cultivated in farms or ponds. Oils could be extracted using chemical solvents, enzymes, expeller presses, osmotic shock or ultrasonic shock waves.
The terms "might not" and all the coulda, woulda, shouldas, together with those coulda, woulda, shouldas being as yet unproven economically do not make this report identify a "likely" alternative, at this point.
Too much theoretical at this point, in spite of your hype and spin with "likely"; so do you have an investment in some firm you hope will profit from the idea?
California has hundreds of miles of Pacific Ocean coast, practically unlimited farmland, water, and sunshine for fuel algae production. And it's close to where the fuel is needed.
You don't really know California do you? I grew up there.
It does not have "unlimited farmland". In fact, since almost every naturally great acre of farmland in California is presently farmed (or in the path of development), other farmers seeking land have flooded the desert between Arizona and the urban areas of Southern California with Colorado river water. But, since it is not a natural process, with 100% irrigated farming on a totally flat plain, the land becomes poorer and more toxic every year (salt simply builds up).
Except for the Pacific Ocean water, usable water, is hotly contested across the state. Southern California has none. It gets all its usable water from far east at the Colorado River and from a canal that runs all the way from the Sacramento Valley to just north of San Diego. Of course the Northern half of the State thinks the Southern half is stealing more water than it is due, and Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico all think California gets more Colorado river water than it is due. Its not plentiful, its precious, every drop; and between the current landowners and water authorities every drop is allocated and accounted for. Anyone wanting to add to the "productive" use of water for farms in California is going to have to compete and contend with everyone else who already has their water rights established. So, water is not going to be cheap, and if this new idea expects to use more of the deserts of California for its farms, that water that is available will become even more expensive.
Now the lovely liberal "greens" in Massachusettes won't let anyone put wind farms off their pristine coast, so do you really think the Hollywierd crowd is going to let anyone force them to sail their sail boats and yuaghts through algae farms?? I don't think so, and they are certainly not going to let those farms anywhere near the beaches.
As they say: California Dreamin.
Sorry, I was misusing "farmland". Algae can be grown in the ocean which is practically unlimited. With 70% of Earth's sun absorbing surface being saltwater, bioengineered algae is the most obvious biofuel long term. We shouldn't use our freshwater and real farmland for fuel growing since I agree with you 100%, they are very limited. Algae can also use used to create alcohol and under certain conditions can by made to emit hydrogen gas instead of pure oxygen. Algae is extremely efficient at converting solar energy and CO2 into carbohydrates and oils. It is genetically simple enough it is possibly within our current capabilities to genetically engineer special fuel algae. Unlike most other fuels this would create a closed loop system so we could use unlimited amounts without a net change in the atmosphere. If this was world war time we would be spending many billions of dollars researching it. We really should invest in it now without needing to be forced by war.