Furthermore, algae's use as fuel doesn't impact food prices, or the prices of goods made from the many millions of corn byproducts. Arguably, it makes a lot mor

Furthermore, algae's use as fuel doesn't impact food prices, or the prices of goods made from the many millions of corn byproducts. Arguably, it makes a lot more economic sense than corn-based ethanol in the long run. One counter-argument I've heard is that we wouldn't be using land to grow algae in the first place if we weren't growing it for fuel. Whereas we're already growing more corn than we need. So the opportunity cost of growing algae is therefore taken into consideration. I'd argue that this logic assumes we'd be growing algae and/or corn on the same plots of land, which seems to be inaccurate. I don't think a zero-sum economic analysis can be done, given that they are not viable substitute crops in any given space. Furthermore, I don't think we're growing enough surplus corn to cover total fuel consumption needs without dipping into the food and industrial supply. Finally, yes, algae is a more efficient raw material for fuel extraction than corn is.