Algal fuels: is hydrocarbon extraction always necessary?

This is the second posting prompted by something I read today at FuturePundit.

Commenting on news that a new proprietary strain of algae has been bred to increase its uptake of CO₂ (and hence its production of fuel hydrocarbon) in high-light conditions, Randall says that "The rate of growth of algae is just one of several factors that affect biodiesel algae costs. Another big factor is extraction cost. What does it cost to get the oil separated from the rest of the algae mass?"

That might be so for use in the field of transport, which is after all a big consideration, but in the field of power generation I seem to remember power stations being built in the UK that took coal, crushed it (into either small crumbs or a fine powder, I can't remember which) and then burned it. The crushing meant that the coal burned more efficiently: increased oxygen flow meant that more of it burned and that it burned at higher temperatures. Would it be too fanciful to imagine hydrocarbon-rich algae being skimmed from the pools in which they grow, dried into an oily cake and the cake then transported to similar power stations where it could be crushed and burned, without any necessity for extracting the oil from the algal mass?

If that did work then it would be possible to extend the idea to heating factories, offices and even individual homes. After all, it's not so long ago that a man knocked at my parents' front door every week and sold us a few sacks of coal for the fire.