☎️ E16: In Conversation with John Waite, Co-Founder and CEO of Phycobloom and a Breakthrough Energy Fellow on the State of Biofuels and Algae Fuel 🌱⛽
Engineering Biology to Decarbonize Energy
Welcome 👋 to State of the Future. I’m Lawrence Lundy-Bryan, and I do research. I curate State of the Future, the World’s most comprehensive deep tech tracker. I use this research to make bets on the future with Lunar Ventures, a deep tech venture fund. Every week I publish our latest insights and interviews, everything from Vector Databases, LLMs, and Decentralised AI to Optical, Neuromorphic, and Analog Computing. If you are curious about deep tech, subscribe 👇
If LLMs are busy scraping the Internet, where are your propriety datasets? In venture capital we absolutely love coming up with “theses”. It makes the randomness of throwing many darts at the dart board seem intellectual. Yeah, yeah I have a thesis around the future of status games on the Internet. Or a thesis around the future of a paperless office in 2050, or whatever. It was based on months of “desk research” where we did lots of analysis of…. False. You drank from the firehose of Twitter and now you are all in on LLMs.
But if everyone else is on Twitter and asking Claude to come up with “5 interesting and surprising investment opportunities at the intersection of VTOLs and crypto” then hype investing and average returns await. You can have all the data infrastructure you like, but garbage in, garbage out.
I have one weird trick that will supercharge your investment theses.
Interviews. The answer is expert interviews. Those LLMs can’t do do phone interviews yet. And if you prepare good questions, you can get answers that don’t exist on the Internet. And then you can put them on substack and lose the proprietary data?! Erm, now I think about it. I probably shouldn’t share all this. But open-source wins right? Well, I dunno…
Anyway, I’m this deep now and continuation bias this week, you get algae fuel. Fuel made from oils cultivated from algae fue. Algae's high lipid content and ability to grow in various environments like non-arable land using wastewater make it an attractive low-carbon alternative to liquid fossil fuels and alternative biofuels.
I interviewed a *world-leading* (KLAXON) expert, John Waite, Co-founder and CEO of Phycobloom, a biotechnology company engineering the next generation of algae to make the fossil fuel industry green. They geneticially modify algae to breed the most effecient strain to make algea fuel is best biofuel and speed up the transition away from liquid fossil fuels.
And if you have read more than one of these newsletters, you are free-riding. Respect the game by hitting the share button below.
Peace and love, Lawrence
7 Things I Learned about The Future of Algae Fuel🌱⛽
🌡️Viability: High on the TRL scale, but costs are prohibitive, especially relative to extraordinarily cheap and subsided fossil fuels. Algae fuels offer superior photosynthetic efficiency and photosynthetic density to other biofuels.
🛞 Drivers: Demand-side, the decarbonisation agenda is renewing interest in biofuels and, in particular, the need to decarbonise aviation and shipping. On the supply side, improvements in genetic modification tools like CRISPR make bio-prospecting cheaper and faster.
💡Novelty: Biofuels compete against liquid fossil fuels and cannot compete on cost without more stringent regulation and a higher carbon price. Algae fuel has the potential to be the cheapest biofuel and has the advantage of requiring much less land than other biofuels. It is most likely to complement other biofuels as volumes of biofuels are increased and be most beneficial for shipping and aviation.
⛔ Diffusion: Algae fuel is expensive, and European regulation prohibits scaling because GM products cannot be grown outside. The big challenge will be producing the scale the industry needs and all the required infrastructure costs to deliver that. Certainly not impossible, but it will be slow going.
💸Impact: Most likely, the low-medium impact scenario is algae fuel contributing a significant part of the biofuel mix as biofuels grow as a proportion of the liquid fuel market. The most valuable applications for algae fuel will be speciality fuels requiring complex long-chain hydrocarbons, like jet fuel, diesel, lubricants, and heavy fuel oils used in ships.
⏰ Timing: Algae fuel has a long way to go until costs come down and production facilities can support industry-level volumes. We should expect pilot demonstrations in shipping and aviation by 2030, with volumes increasing to 2035 before it significantly contributes to the biofuel mix.
🔮2030 Prediction: Algae fuel is at a demonstration stage in aircraft but contributes less than 1% of the biofuel mix
On Viability
Lawrence: How technically viable is algae fuel in 2023?
John: Technically, it’s ready, but commercially, less so. For decades, we've been able to turn algae oil and algae biomass into fuel and then drive a car, fly a plane, and sail a ship. The question has always been around cost. And when it comes to algae fuel, it will never be cheaper if it competes with petrol. I don't think it's reasonable to expect any biofuel will ever be cheaper than a heavily subsidized resource dug out of the ground. I don't think there's a viable pathway to economic competitiveness.
How does it compare to other biofuels? Well, algae fuel will be a lot more expensive than any bioethanol made from agricultural products, particularly agricultural residue. It will be more expensive than palm oil-derived products because palm oil production and agriculture are very efficient markets. They can produce vast amounts of biomass, and it's readily available around the world.
Algae fuel brings tremendous photosynthetic efficiency and photosynthetic density that you can’t achieve with other biofuels, meaning you can get a lot of oil out of a small area, out of a smaller amount of sunlight and a small amount of resources. But there are significant bottlenecks. The first, and the one we’re working on, is post-processing. You can grow algae and make lots of oil in a tiny area with minimal resources. But then you have to take the biomass, dry it, boil it, mash it, stick it in a stew, and it's very energy intensive. It means that your energy balance and cost balance needs fixing. That’s the key thing to solve before algae fuel can compete on cost with other biofuels.
Lawrence: What could happen to change the commercial viability? What sort of processes could materially drive costs down on the supply side? And on the demand side, could something massively drive up demand?
John: We are seeing that now with the EU plans to make sustainable aviation fuel 2% blending mandate in 2025, going up to 5% in 2030. This is a massive increase in the amount of biofuel needed. So it depends on what is sustainable. If you mandate that you can't use crop oils and you can't use palm oils, and you can't use imported things, you're running out of places to get these massive volumes, and then the price will start spiking. So, there's a pathway for algae oil to be viable, even if it's just the rising demand curve.
On Drivers
Lawrence: How powerful are the adoption forces? Macro-wise, we have the decarbonisation agenda, that’s as big a driver as you’re likely to get. But that’s driving all climate technologies, including alternatives. Is there something specific driving algae fuel on the supply or demand side?
John: Let’s start on the demand side, and I’ve touched on regulation because that really is the key driver. Where you have policies in place, we see faster adoption. You only have to look at EVs in the automotive industry or Jet Zero 2050. And then carbon pricing, which is regulation, that is directly impacting adoption. So, the broader coverage of carbon pricing and a higher price will make zero-carbon alternatives cost-competitive. On the algae fuel side, anything that mandates biofuel use and raises oil prices will drive algae fuel adoption. On the supply side, we have new tools to improve the technical capability and the technology's economic viability. CRISPR and, generally, biotechnology are improving in leaps and bounds. The tools make genetically modifying algae cheaper, faster and easier.
Lawrence: On genetic modification, it's we have a good tool and, you know, the base editing and various other ways in which to make genetic modification easier. But I understand it's still a long, complex process to use and bio-prospect. Is something on the horizon that doesn’t just incrementally improve the process but drives down costs 10x?
John: So, 5 to 10 years ago, the cost of getting a complete genome sequence was astronomical compared to today. Today, in our lab, we have an Oxford Nanopore sequencer. We can get vast amounts of sequencing data, and we paid about £1000 for that piece of technology and can run it whenever we want. It's plugged into a computer, sits on a desk, and you can run it whenever necessary. The consoles are expensive, but it's doable. So, that kind of thing makes biotechnology and industrial biotechnology much more accessible, cheaper, and faster. Your iteration cycle is shrinking and shrinking. There are still barriers, though. One key one is when you're looking at new organisms, they are hard to manipulate. You can do anything to E. coli. Now, as a species, we are very good at messing around with the genome of E. coli because many people have done it. It's not that E. coli is easy to do; there's so much experience and knowledge. But that research and process is not generalisable. If you find a new bacteria or something, you're starting not from scratch but from a standing start. So, learning how to edit, manipulate, and understand that organism will take a long time. And if it turns out that the organism can’t do what you wanted it to do, you have enormous sunk costs. So, this is one of the main challenges when we work with a vast amount of algae. We need to test a lot of different strains if this is going to be a scalable technology. But some of them are just not going to work. We won't get the performance to the required level, even with all the best tools.
Lawrence: This sounds like important science, though. Schematically, you are testing hundreds of strains, and you can discard the ones that don’t work. That’s a public good to some extent. The next set of companies will spend less money to re-test them, and they can skip much of the testing, right?
John: Yes, if they're published. Biotechnology is not unique in not publishing negative results. It's a problem everywhere. Even if you publish some data that says we’ve transformed this species with this technology, we’ve got these fantastic results. And for love nor money, you cannot recreate their effect. It could be that they have a slightly different version of the species, and you don't realise it, or they don’t know themselves. Or they didn’t note all the conditions or whatever. An experiment might fail for hundreds of reasons, and it’s binary. Maybe you get no colonies on your plate, and you go, well, that didn't work. But it’s hard to pinpoint precisely why. So, recreating results is actually a huge, huge problem. It's an almost vanishingly small number of papers that could actually be recreated, probably.
On Novelty
Lawrence: How much better is algae fuel relative to alternatives? How does it compare to the cost of liquid fossil fuels?
John: Biofuels are expensive. People said solar panels could never be as cheap as natural gas. And look where we are. So I don’t think it’s inevitable that it will always be more expensive. But fundamentally, with biofuels, you are taking some inputs. You are taking, at a minimum, land, water, and fertilizers. With liquid fossil fuels, you have high Capex, but then it just comes out of the ground for free. Effectively, your variable cost there is very, very low. It's very efficient. And after a hundred or so years, society is incredibly good at getting it out of the ground and to the places that need it cheaply. In my opinion, that’s the jewel in the crown of human technology. It’s incredible what we’ve done. And maybe one day, that will be growing algae or palm oil efficiently and sustainably. But if you look at the techno-economics competing with Saudi Aramco, getting oil out of the ground for what is like $20 a barrel. That is insanity. That's so cheap. Biofuels need more inputs and don’t have the same economies of scale.
But if you introduce a carbon tax and don’t allow fossil fuel companies to use the atmosphere as a sewer, and you factor in all the externalities, what is the accurate price? Of course, that even ignores the subsidies that fossil fuel companies get. Every government in the world subsidizes fossil fuels effectively. There is vast amounts of money that has gone to make it cheaper to do that thing, which is crazy in the context of climate change; we are actively making it harder to compete with those companies. So easy things could be done to make fossil fuels more price accurate or price those externalities. But yeah, I don't see a world where liquid carbon fuels remain this cheap or ever get cheaper than they are now.
Lawrence: Before turning to biofuels particularly, how do you think about green hydrogen as an alternative to solving some of the same problems as algae fuel?
John: Hydrogen has the capacity to be two things. It has the capacity to be an energy carrier. You have electricity, and you split water with it. And then, when you combine hydrogen and oxygen, you get some of that electricity back. It can also be a valuable reducing agent for things like steelmaking. It can be a beneficial chemical for a bunch of different things. It's a necessary input to things like fertilizer production. We need hydrogen for many things and have a colossal hydrogen industry globally. We burn methane to produce hydrogen. I see hydrogen as an area to decarbonize rather than a solution to others. If we can get on the same learning curve as solar and wind have been on for electrolyzers and hydrogen production, perhaps one day, the cost of hydrogen really come down. But we're looking at having to produce megatons of hydrogen. And transport hydrogen in a very different way than we currently do. And that's before we ever get to the fuel piece. And to get to a fuel piece, it's got to be dirt cheap. Just as biofuels have to be cheap. The world is realising that hydrogen as a fuel is a dud.
Lawrence: Why does the UK government seem to think we want to be the world leader in green hydrogen?
John: Well, there's the optimistic piece. Green hydrogen is different from hydrogen fuel, remember? If you're designing a hydrogen truck or infrastructure for hydrogen trucking, it’s hard to see the comparative advantage. I don’t see any way to compete on cost there. But if you're producing a better electrolyzer, that’s great. Or decarbonising hydrogen production, again, very good. So, if the aim is to become leaders in decarbonising hydrogen production, that’s not bad per se. The pessimistic take is that green hydrogen solves stranded fossil fuel assets. Stranded assets will wipe off billions from the global economy if left there. Using green hydrogen as a gas blend, you get to keep boilers running longer. Industrials and chemicals can extend the lifespans of their assets. They've built a big liquid natural gas processing unit in Ontario. They say it will run natural gas, and eventually, it will blend some hydrogen in. Yeah, I don't see how that's anything but a PR spin to allow you to invest this money in what is quite clearly fossil fuel infrastructure. You will never put hydrogen through the gas network as a material scientist. It will not happen. Hydrogen is the worst thing to store in transport in the world. It is the least dense molecule in existence. And it destroys everything it touches.
Lawrence: Alright, biofuels are expensive, and hydrogen fuel will never work. But what are the advantages of algae fuels over biofuels specifically? Why are people like you working on them?
John: Our techno-economic modelling shows algae fuel has the capacity to be one of the cheapest forms of fuel. If everything works, which is a big if, I wouldn't ever claim to be working on the silver bullet. It’s not going to solve everything. That’s how Algae 1.0 failed because they said they’d solved everything when they hadn't. But if you look at the fundamentals for things like palm oil. Palm oil is another massively subsidized industry through various government schemes, land grabs, etc. So, palm oil is artificially reduced in price as well. We can potentially beat palm oil if you look at the relative cost. Algae are at a minimum 10x more area efficient than any crops producing oil, which gives you a huge advantage. You're also not competing for the same kind of land. Can algae compete if you're producing 1% of all the world's fuel needs as a biofuel? Probably not, because it's going to be cheaper to use palm oil. It's going to be cheaper to use agricultural system by-products. But If you're trying to produce 99% or 50% of the world's fossil fuels as a biofuel, what will you do? Because you're not going to do it with used cooking oil. There are not enough waste oils around that you can turn into fuel to make that work. So you cap off maybe 15-20% of all fuel you can do as a waste. Then what? Maybe more palm oil. Okay, so let's level Indonesia use all of Indonesia as palm oil producers. You're still not at that 50% number. So you start running out of other things to compete with. Well, the great thing about algae is it's very area-dense. And actually, the land you're using, you can use pretty much anywhere, like coastal deserts. You can flood it with seawater, grow your algae, and you're done. So, in terms of cost and scalability, looking forward to 50 years, algae is much closer than any others, just from a pure scalability perspective. Currently, the world uses 600,000km² of farmland to grow fuel. We would need about 70 to 80,000km² of algae to do all aviation, which is a much more manageable number.
Lawrence: Land. The answer is land. Algae fuel uses less land. Great, but it uses a lot of water.
John: Yes, because fundamentally, the big difference between algae and other crops is algae grow in water, and crops grow in soil. And that is a good thing. You do need more water per square meter, but you do not need more water per litre of fuel. So that's the way to look at it. So if you're in a square meter, you're producing ten litres of fuel. You're going to need 100 litres of water. But for palm oil, you probably need less water per square meter, but you need a lot more for the amount of oil you're getting out. There are two ratios. I would say that that sort of per-square-meter value is essential because if you need lots of water in a very tight area, that has its own challenges. If you have an extensive facility, you can spread out, it's a bit easier to get that water. But yeah, you'll need to use a lot of water for algae. You'll need some groundwater connection if that's available, or you'll need to be able to use seawater. Luckily, algae can grow in seawater as long as you can deal with the salt buildup in your ponds in your system. Most algae can survive in saltwater and freshwater. They are not that fussy as far as it goes.
Lawrence: Okay, here you are, telling me algae fuel needs little land and is competitive in water per litre. What’s the downside? Fertilizer. I read that producing algae biofuel to meet 15% of US transportation fuel demand would require 5% of the entire US fertilizer production dedicated to growing the algae.
John: So I remember reading some stat like that. I think they're mostly wrong. I think they've taken a very nutrient-rich media that's used to grow algae rapidly in a lab and scaled it up. Algae have the lowest nutrient requirement of any crop for every kilogram of oil produced. Conservatively, an algae cell is 20 to 40% oil; there's not as much nitrogen, phosphorus, or everything else in an algae cell as in palm oil. It's a lot more practical, usable carbon and less other stuff. Our technology allows you to use algae in a steady state condition. You can harvest the oil repeatedly, meaning you also need fewer nutrients.
On Diffusion
Lawrence: How easily could algae fuel be adopted? Sustainable aviation fuel is pitched as “drop-in” replacements because they don’t need any new infrastructure. You change a few seals in your engine, and you're good to go. To what extent is that true of algae fuel, and are there other restraints other than land, water, and fertiliser?
John: A big one is available scale. How long will it take you to produce the fuel at the volumes customers need? We're working as hard as we can. We're going to want to build a pilot commercial facility. We want to have planes in the sky by 2030 powered by algae. But how many? Fossil fuels are measured in billions of gallons. And if you can't produce something approaching that number, what use are you? So speed to scale is really important. And algae is not going to be fast to scale. There are going to be challenges as you get bigger. There are going to be teething problems, there are going to be co-location issues. You'll need to have your site close to specific infrastructures, meaning you can't just build one anywhere. Ideally, you want to be able to scale the same site. It’s not impossible, obviously; palm oil is already available in billions of gallons, rapeseed oil is already available in billions of gallons, and the same for used cooking oil. We've built infrastructure to collect and use cooking oil in the billions of gallons range.
But another barrier will be when we try to scale. Growing algae outdoors in huge quantities is something we already do as a species in certain places. Some facilities are tens of square kilometres of growing algae in Australia. However, growing GM algae is very different, typically in closed bioreactors at small volumes. And where you're going to site those facilities is really challenging. We want to engage with regulation as much as we can as early as possible. We're not yet really at a stage where we can do field trials and iron that out. But GM legislation is a concern.
Lawrence: Is there existing legislation? Is growing GM algae banned?
John: The EU has a blanket ban on any GM product grown outdoors. The fundamental rule is that if you're using a GM product, you must have a containment system to deal with 100% leakage. If you build a pond outdoors, you have to have a bigger one that will feed into it. So, if that pond fails, it is a significant additional cost, as you can imagine. So, for most commodity products, GM is impractical. You can make a GM product, but there are labelling requirements, export controls, and all this kind of stuff that make it difficult for food. But it's very piecemeal, and the rules change all the time. Generally, the world is moving towards a more sensible legislative framework like the US. South America has much better terms, for example. The EU and the UK are much further behind, they have an aggressive policy. The EU is not a great place to grow algae anyway, so it’s not a huge issue, really. But it's a problem that has to be solved with each jurisdiction.
The cultural resistance to genetic modification in food is interesting. I’ve spoken to someone who is anti-GM. He was a big fan of algae biofuels but was anti-GM algae. They just wanted to crossbreed and selectively breed algae high in oil that could grow fast and never had a culture crash. This doesn’t make sense to me. GM is a tool to speed up the optimisation process and ultimately should reduce cost, which is a net good. The concern that you might end up with some Superman algae that, if it escapes, can grow anywhere and cause ecosystem collapse isn’t correct. Our algae is fragile, if it escapes somehow, it will die out. And the oil released is a natural product anyway. We're not making it anything new. There's nothing in it that is dangerous. So, I feel confident that our algae fuel will not be banned with sensible legislation.
Lawrence: Another thing I wanted to ask you about is food inflation. A World Bank policy paper said the increase in global biofuel production accounted for 70-75% of global food prices from 2000 to 2007. Another paper suggested the diversion of cropland from food to fuel is estimated to have accounted for 30-40% of the food price spike during that period. I wonder if public awareness could lead to a negative perception of biofuels, including algae fuel. Alternatively, the negative perception might help algae fuel as policymakers turn to less land-intensive biofuels.
John: In the context of the current food inflation, I don't think biofuels play a significant part. The main reason for food inflation is energy inflation. Climates are rapidly shifting, and whether or not you can grow something will change rapidly in many areas. And with mass migration, food demand is more mobile, too. The idea that we have locked certain agricultural areas into producing vast amounts of canola oil isn’t going to last. We are wasting a valuable resource, agricultural land, on fuel production. Agriculture is a complex industry, and producing anything globally will cause problems. I mean, a third of all land is used to grow feedstocks. That is also not ideal. Should we use the land to grow feedback and biofuels? Probably not. If we didn’t, we could reallocate land to other crops and reduce costs. But narratives around food, especially concerning complex food systems, take a long time to change.
On Impact
Lawrence: Turning to how impactful algae fuel could be, I think algae fuel could contribute materially to the decarbonization process, primarily for aviation and transportation. But there are lots of alternatives, and it's a tool in an extensive toolkit with solar PV, small modular reactors and a whole bunch of other things. Is there one area where algae biofuel could dominate? I'm thinking aviation, you know, but are there others that I should be thinking about?
John: This is always a question of scale. The scale of the fossil fuel industry is in the order of multiple trillions. There won’t be just one solution. That’s why it’s not really about alternatives, it’s about using every tool. Not just because different tools are suitable for complex problems and regions, but again because of scale. You can’t say palm oil is relatively cheap, and we have harvesting infrastructure in place, so let’s scale it up. But what does it look like to grow 100 billion gallons of palm oil annually? So, there has to be a mix. If we want to continue moving around the world in the way that we do, we need something like algae, biofuels, maybe e-fuels and hydrogen.
Lawrence: Okay, but is there one application for which algae fuel is better than everything else? Or is it a good alternative for a whole variety of applications?
John: Algae are really good at making long-chain hydrocarbons. Regarding the quality of the actual biofuel feedstock, I think algae pretty much sit on the top. They make very high-purity oleic content in their oil. Palm oil, for example, is a complex mix of stuff. It's not a pure product in any sense. Then algae have an outstanding chemical balance of all the nice stuff we're looking for, like very high oleic content (c18). I think we will see the adoption of algae for marine fuels before aviation fuels because diesel ships use long-chain hydrocarbons. aviation fuel is in the K to C range, so it is not long. Lanzatech, for example, makes their aviation fuels using a microbe to make a very small hydrocarbon, and then they add as many carbons onto it as possible. So they're building it up. Algae do the same thing, but in an incredibly efficient way that no organism can replicate. So the question is: what applications need long-chain complex hydrocarbons?
Lawrence: Yes, that is the question, go on…
John: The longer the hydrocarbon is, the the more viscous it is. Probably the more energy-dense it's going to be. So you're looking at things like lubricants. Additives, for plastics, that kind of thing.
The other thing to say, though, is when you think of the thing that algae can do that nothing else can do, you're looking for a high-value market. And because of the fossil fuel infrastructure, we have ample long-chain hydrocarbons. So, these are not generally high-value products. There's a reason that ship oil is C20 plus because it’s very cheap and readily available. So, it's not like a dream market for algae. It's not necessarily something we must use long-chain hydrocarbons for, either. The market exists because they are readily available; say they're no longer available, is there a market for them? Ships can run on diesel. They don't need to run on C25 or C26. They can run on diesel. Aviation fuel is a bit different. if you were to design a perfect energy carrier for jet engines, it would look like kerosene. If you had a blank canvas, you'd design something almost identical to kerosene. Jet A is perfect, pretty much as is.
On Timing
Lawrence: How do you think about timing? Are we talking at least 7 years into the 2030+ bracket before we have significant volumes in one of these application areas?
John: It could be early to mid-2030. Personally, I'm looking at my own timetable as we think we can get a demonstration or commercial facility operational before 2030 to have fuel not at scale by any stretch but have fuel being used in planes as a demonstration by 2030. However, that being said, you could already fly a plane on algae. So, you know, the technological readiness of algae, as I said right at the start, it's there ready to go. If the demand side needs it, it's ready to go. So it could be scaled very rapidly. However, it's going to be expensive. So, it depends on how you define readiness. Looking at other green technologies, we do not have a way to make green steel ready to go at any cost. You know, you can build it. You can do it. You could build many small hybrid plants that use hydrogen, but the infrastructure is not there. You would struggle to do it even if you have an unlimited budget. It's not quite the case for algae. So there’s that. But again, when there are no budgetary constraints, it's not the real world. So, it's not really a practical conversation to have. So technologically, it could be done, but realistically, when algae will have an impact, you're looking at the mid-2030. It also depends on political will. Maersk has made a 2040 net zero commitment. How the hell are Maersk going to do that? Because they will order all the ships that will be operational in 2040 within the next few years. So something is missing there, too.
On 2030 Prediction
Lawrence: Last question, my prediction before speaking was by 2030, algae fuel is at a demonstration stage in aircraft but will contribute less than 1% of the biofuel mix. What do you think?
John: Yep, I think so. We can't make enough algae fuel to displace a lot of fossil fuel, and that's not a problem of available feedstock. There is more than enough available feedstock at the moment. It's a problem if insufficient facilities can turn that feedstock into fuel. Those facilities are being built, but the next problem to face is fuel production. However, the bottleneck will move further up the chain to feedstock production. And that's what algae really solve. Phycobloom is not a solution to the 2025 problem. It's a problem for a solution that'll be here in 2030. I dream it becomes a problem because the rest has been solved. Hopefully.
Lawrence: Cheers, John; connect with him on Linkedin and learn more at Phycobloom.com.
how are you fixed for an algae fuel gif?
