Reviewer Comments - EERE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2011 Algae Platform Review – Reviewer Comments Reviewer Comments are direct transcripts of commentary and material provided by the Platform’s Review Panel. They have not been edited or altered by the Biomass Program. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 5 Altough the presentation was professional, and the individual topics (unit operations) discussed of obvious quality, it was very difficult to see how this approach improves upon the most recent reports of Benneman and co-authors It appears to be a strong collection of individual researchers, each with their own expertise, collected from labs around the U.S., performing their own research. Although the PI layed out a competant set of "criteria" or objectives that has to be met to achieve success (slide 2), the follow on slides simply looked like individual PI's sent along slides from their group and the PI massaged them together. This reviewer did not see a clear system of unit operations put in place up front, with specific objectives (and input and outputs for all) laid out, that the "team" had to develop. Until this is done, until the PI steps up and states "this is how we are going forward and these are the targets per unit operation" this consortium can be limited by a culture of self-preservation that undermines the down select process. The PI is strongly encouraged to read the reports of Benneman and co-authors and to understand how most of the restrictions stated in those reports will dominate, and how he will use this "experience" and "common sense" to rapidly scale this program back to a fundamental, agriculture/farmer based approach. Rapid downselection with an aggressive application of common sense should be applied rapidly before this program becomes too difficult to manage towards large scale commercial deployment. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 7 Program has well-defined, specific, and relevant goals with quantitative values for productivity and costs. Milestones and decision points are identified on a time scale. Activities that should be done in sequence are being driven in parallel, possibly because of the short term nature of the funding. Presenter Response As the FOA for our proposal stated, the main NAABB program goals are the development of technologies for biofuels development. The FOA also required that our program add components necessary to develop all aspects of biomass generation and utilization, in order to increase the economic value of the overall biofuels development, such as would be implemented in a biorefinery system. Therefore, the bulk of our program leads to biofuels development from algal lipids and biomass, along with power generation, chemical and agricultural coproducts developed from lipid extracted biomass. We have had several face-to-face project meetings and many others, in which scale-up challenges have been a major topic. Similarly, our management team and several set of investigators have travelled and met at Pecos and other production sites to review the process and understand the challenges. We will continue to do this and will take into consideration having a future overall program meeting at one of our large-scale facilities. The NAABB program uses the knowledge gathered in the Acquatic Species Program (ASP), by John Benemann and others, as a starting point. For example, we utilize Nannochloropsis salina as one of our main production strains. Unfortunately, many of the other strains identified by the ASP have been lost. Therefore, the NAABB prospecting efforts is helping continue to identify potential useful strains for cultivation. We also realize the technological advances that have occurred since the end of the ASP, for example, genomic and transcriptome sequencing capabilities have made it much easier to identify target genes for regulation and modification. Thus, the NAABB program is utilizing new high throughput sequencing and proteomics capabilities to advance our knowledge of algae and develop successful productive strains of algae. We are examining innovative ways to increase lipid production. This includes the identification of genes via systems biology and random mutagenesis approaches and developing tools to transform likely production strains with those candidate genes that prove helpful. Crop protection also falls under this area of increased lipid production by potentially decreasing down time due to crop failure, i.e., pond crashes. The FOA for this program required the formation of a consortium with a broad representation from academia, industry and national laboratories. In forming our consortium we chose institutions that brought capabilities that were complimentary and appropriate across the developmental process for biofuels. We have assembled a team that has unique capabilities, yet is willing to work Page 10 of 223
2011 Algae Platform Review – Reviewer Comments Reviewer Comments are direct transcripts of commentary and material provided by the Platform’s Review Panel. They have not been edited or altered by the Biomass Program. together to develop the NAABB objectives and goals. The NAABB program has over 70 individual task and subtask areas, within a very structured work break down schedule with milestones, deliverables, and decision points. These are contained within our Statement of Project Objectives and our Project Management Plan, as submitted and negotiated with DOE. A 45 minute presentation, at such a level of detail, would not have been possible. Our program has incorporated a number of check points, assessments, and decision points for the processes and technologies being developed, the first of which are being implemented at months 12, 15, 18 and 24, in our program. These will generate a downselection, rescoping, and/or refocusing for many of our processes to achieve timely changes in R&D to achieve our goals and objectives. Our goal is to make production of microalgae a farming endeavor that is: economically feasible, energetically positive, and environmentally sound. This goal cannot happen without new scientific and technological breakthroughs. And, certainly it cannot happen without the underlying foundation and infrastructure to support such a farming endeavor, e.g., seed (algal strain) development, sound cultivation practices, economical harvesting, and process logistics. All of which are major components of the NAABB program. 2. Technical Progress and Accomplishments Please evaluate the degree to which the project has made progress in its objectives and stated project management plan has met its objectives in achieving milestones and overcoming technical barriers. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 6 Progress has been made even though the project has not been in place for very long. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 6 Development of ARID raceway, genomic information, and strain improvement work is promising. Acoustic focusing is promising in recovery. GREET analysis for life cycle analysis is important. Recycling of N and P after lipid extraction will be critical. Bioproducts of fuel include aquaculture feeds, which is very promising but what is the omega 3 FA content after lipid extraction, if any? Without this, the feed quality will be much less valuable. Concerns/monitoring of competitors and pathogens in open pond raceways is more transparent than many similar efforts; chemical and engineered disease resistance is proposed; I think it is unlikely that GMO algae will be approved in open pond raceways due to wide dispersal potential of such algae into the wild at 100s of km from sites. Strain selection needs more attention for disease resistance. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 5 This is the first year of operation of the NAABB and progress is modest. However, this is to be expected as all projects have a long ramp-up time in the beginning. Question: How does NAABB plan to monitor and assess progress by individual participants? I ask them to develop a quality control mechanism that would be applied to all participants. As one criterion, I would recommend simple Gantt charts for each and every of the NAABB projects, and application of the criterion of "peer-reviewed" publications, as a benchmark. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 6 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 5 Unfortunately, there was not enough detail for evaluation. Page 11 of 223
Page 1 and 2: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 9: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 61 and 62:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223:
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?