From the standpoint of an escape from the long predicted specter of Peak Oil and an inevitable energy crisis that would be a Luddite dream, it makes sense (though fission still makes a lot MORE sense, IMHO.) Obviously I would love to see a cheap abundant energy source that allowed America to evacuate and ignore the Mid-East without going back to literal horsepower, and if magnetic algae help us achieve that goal I am all for it. In that respect, this development is a strong positive if it can be verified and cheaply reproduced.

I just fail to grasp the love so many environmentalists have for things like biodiesel and ethanol (or in this case, algae) because it seems more like a means of CO2 neutrality rather than reduction. It is much like the old "carbon sequestration" scheme: It is a zero sum game that simply cycles CO2 from the atmosphere into biomass and back again without changing the overall quantity present in the atmosphere at any given time. This is definitely an "alternative" energy in the sense of not being fossil fuels, but will not end CO2 emissions any more than "clean burning" natural gas; that is simply not how hydrocarbon chemistry works. It may save our living standards and industry, and obviate the need for at least some geopolitical games, and that would be a wonderful thing, but the people who talk about it "saving the planet" leave me scratching my head.