This is roughly 3.5 times the baseline and translates to 12,100 gal/acre/year.

But that appears to be the growth rate of the algae, and not oil production. NREL indicated that the high oil % happened when they starved the algae. That bumps the % oil up, but growth ceases.

But that is the way that the equation is being presented.

It would be more helpful for me if you can point out which parameter/equation that Dimitrev used is wrong. I have long hoped that he was wrong, but I feared that he was right. If you can convince me that he was wrong, I will be grateful. And I am not being facetious.

If you will forgive me I believe you are generalizing from the particular. It really depends on the species that you are growing in regard to growth rate, and lipid content, and there are a number of other factors that also come into play, that Dimitrev did not factor in.

Since the experiments with which I am familiar come at the issue from a different approach I will have to revisit Dimitrev's work in more detail ( I have it, I just have to find it) to pin down exactly where he made the error.

Incidentally, if this were more than a fictional enterprise, you might recognize the name of one of the corporate vice-presidents.

And in this hypothetical, purely fictional world, at what stage in the 20 year enterprise would 2008 be?

About year 3.