The particular temperature being the temperature on the field.

You are misinformed regarding the civil rights movement. One of the rights the movement fought for was firearms ownership. Blacks were being discriminated against with respect to firearms too. The KKK boys prefer their victims unarmed when they show up.

OK, you have lost all credibility. Any mild amount of googling proves you wrong. Try it some time. Once you get remotely familiar with the topic you will find that both paths need significant research and engineering and cost reductions. The old swimming pool sized study you cling to proves little.

The most efficient with respect to survival in the environment. That is not the same thing as the most efficient with respect to production of the desired chemicals and the efficiency of use of the injected CO2.

You are making many assumptions about your very dated and very early stage research citation. There are still many technical problems with ponds and reactors are expensive. If quality control and non-seasonality are more important than cost then in the short term reactors are the way to go, this seems to be the case for the military. The industry is still researching both paths and expects large scale productions to be decades away. As I said, there is a lot of engineering to do to go from a small feasibility study to actual large scale production.

No, the goal is not to simply get something to grow. The point is to get specific species that produce desired byproducts efficiently to grow. Selection for the environment is one thing, selecting for efficient industrial production is something else. This is one of the differences between basic scientific research that demonstrates feasibility and engineering that produces a product, in academia a certain amount of hand waving, of leaving secondary problems for the next researcher (or engineer), is allowed.

Like it or not the military is leading the effort to industrialize biofuels and do large scale production. Historically many scientific and engineering advances have come from the military. When the military wants a technology then that field generally advances faster than when left purely to academia and industry. Military involvement is probably very good news for biofuels.

Many public universities retain patents related to any research done by their faculty or students. Licensing is a source of revenue, in theory reducing the amount of taxpayer revenue to run the place. At the University of California 50% of licensing fees go to the statewide university system, 25% to the department of the researchers and 25% to the researchers themselves. Researchers are required to report anything that is remotely patentable, a special department handles all the legal BS. The university does give small and/or local companies preferential pricing and consideration with respect to licensing fees, hoping to promote a local cluster of expertise.

Your own old citation proves otherwise. Your citation mentions various open questions moving from lab conditions to field conditions. Swings in desert temperatures were very disruptive, hostile to many species. At best your citation claims they have shown large scale plausibilty. As I said, much work remains.

Wiki shows that more recent government cost estimates approach US$200 a barrel pricing.

You need to re-read. They claim nothing more than plausibility of large scale production from the olympic sized pool testing. The US military is only now attempting large scale production and anticipates **decades** of work ahead. And the needs of the military are dwarfed by commercial trucking. After basic science comes engineering and engineering takes time.

A perfect summary of the situation regarding algae based biofuels. I'd love to see it happen but for the near future we could move to natural gas or continue to use petroleum.

No we could not do that in the very near future.

No. The fact that the technology is proven does not mean that it is ready to scale up to necessary levels any time soon. We are only now just beginning to experiment with large scale production as part of US military pilot programs. Your algae ponds will be tied up in court for a decade or more before the first shovel touches desert tortoise or kangaroo rat habitat. Let alone all the necessary engineering that still needs to take place.

No, the fracking techniques could be cleaned up. Regulations are need to ensure proper shaft creation, non-toxic fluids being pumped, fracking is at proper depths and below proper impermeable layers, etc. There is nothing wrong with the fracking concept, its the current implementation that is screwed up. An implementation based on low costs not safety.

In the US we could greatly reduce pollution in the very near future with existing technology by switching our heavy trucks from diesel to natural gas. Such trucks aren't going electric anytime soon. Biodiesel might be interesting but its not ready to scale up as necessary anytime soon. We'll probably have to wait some number of decades as the US military breaks ground with respect to large scale use of biofuels.

That said we probably need to cleanup our natural gas production so that any gains on the back end (trucking) are not lost on the front end (production).

The post I responded to listed various OT laws with death and other extreme punishments as evidence of Christian capital crimes.

Other than self defense and "just wars" Christianity does not permit killing. There are no approved death penalties for any crimes. Now had their been murderous crimes committed in the past, yes, by those with heretical beliefs seeking/maintaining the power of the state, not by those practicing the teaching of Christ.

See older posts. OT violations leading to death and other severe penalties are the topic.

The President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, made an interesting speech to a group of Imams supporting my position that moderate muslims in the region have not done enough.

"I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move because this umma [community] is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost — and it is being lost by our own hands."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Christ is not here but many of his teaching are with us. And as I said his actively interfering with a "lawful" stoning is among those lessons. The lesson was clear. Killing for old testament law violations is wrong.

Now please continue making us laugh by arguing that Christ's teachings and examples don't constitute christian beliefs.

Opinions of early church fathers do not have the standing of the teachings of Christ. Again, Christ actively interfered with a "lawful" stoning.

That said, an early church father advocating punching someone in the mouth is very far from stoning someone to death.

You misunderstand the topic. That tolerance for extremist views that allows for attacks on the west and westerners is far more acceptable in modern times than historically more distant times (say 100 years ago). The criticism of the attack on the school in Pakistan does not counter this because the target was local not western. In the past criticism of the extremists was not so selective.

The lack of criticism for pro-caliphate teachings is not restricted to areas under ISIS influence. That is the problem, not that people with an ISIS gun at their head remain silent.

Furthermore the historical point stands that past generations (100+ years) repeatedly put down taliban-like isis-like "lets establish an caliphate" movements. The advocates of such groups were looked down upon. The views of such groups were pointed out to be heretical. Ex. Near the end of WW1 when one such group tried to exert power in newly liberated Damascus they were immediately driven from city hall, when they organized and attempted to revolt against the "moderates" they were put down by force. The various sheiks who assumed control and carried out these anti-caliphate actions openly stated that the caliphate advocates were unfit for any leadership roles because of their heresies and their inability to use logic in decision making. The sheiks had overwhelming public support for these anti-caliphate actions. This all occurred before British forces arrived, moderate muslims policed their own. The sheiks explained to westerners that the pro-caliphate extremists attempted mischief one or twice a century and were overwhelmingly rejected by the people as heretics and put down by local authorities before they made too much mischief. They expected the cycle to continue.

However something has changed and the pro-caliphates are now tolerated or supported to a far larger degree.

It was left for the new administration to negotiate a status of forces agreement that was expected to include a residual force to be left behind. When the Iraqis initially said "no" to immunity for US troops the Obama administration essentially used that as an excuse to leave no forces at all. No serious effort was made to overcome this "no" to immunity. The Bush administration also received an initial "no" regarding immunity in its various agreement, however it increased its offer and the Iraqis agreed to immunity in those past agreements. The initial "no" is a bargaining tactic to get more out of a deal. The Obama administration wanted to be rid of Iraq completely, to them the initial "no" was the perfect excuse not a starting point for negotiations.