Reviewer Comments - EERE

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
Score: 5
It was a competant presentation of work presented, from each group, but very little of it was obviously
linked to an overall goal of developing a single commercial production system. It was not clear if any
single unit operation was aware of what the upstream unit operation was going to deliver and what the
downstream unit operation was going to need to receive. One should be careful touting numbers like
0.11$ per gallon harvested (in the extraction section). Groups are always trying to insert cost instead of
energy ratios, at each unit operation. It may sound great to have 0.11$ per gallon harvested, but if one
process is processing streams that are 99.9% water, this is likely not such a low number when one
considers the total amount of gallons to be processed. One should show how much energy (or power) is
consumed per unit of fuel (or volumetric flowrate) processed. This ratio should be less than 10% of the
overall system for extraction, and 15% for dewatering and harvesting (or 25% if combined into one step).
It’s important that the use of cost is replaced by energy use in systems analysis. If the amount of energy
used is less than that produced, the cost balance will sort it self out. But if more energy is consumed than
produced, the cost balance will not sort itself out unless free sources of energy are leveraged into the
system.
One should not just state low energy input for the acoustic harvester. Low relative to WHAT? One should
show the power input required per volumetric flow of fuel processed (and use this to develop an energy
ratio). It is conerning to see respective extraction (or harvesting) devices touted without a proper metric
for the energy consumed per unit energy produced. The project should be specific about the use of energy
balances that track the unit energy consumed per unit energy produced.
Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 6
Progress in Algal biology and cultivation are co-dependent and are not quantifiable until cultivation data
is available, but the approach and technical expertise is a positive. There appears to be good progress in
identification and preliminary testing of several novel technologies for harvesting and extraction. Because
biology, cultivation, harvesting, and extraction will all have significant impact on oil and coproducts,
much of the work on fuel conversion and feeding studies appears to be premature.
Presenter Response
As presented in the Peer Review, the NAABB program for strain selection flows into a cultivation
pipeline that tests these strains in outdoor environments. This will provide screening for strain robustness
against environmental factors such as predation, bacterial infections, etc. Our program also incorporates
the development of technologies that will help provide resistance from such infections, through the
addition of bacterial controlling substances and breakdown of biofilms produced by such organisms.
Disease resistance is a good parameter to test and one we certainly keep in mind. Our initial selection is
on growth and lipid productivity but we intend to put the best strains into a cultivation environment.
NAABB is already monitoring progress in a number of ways, including: site visits by our project
management team, monthly reports, financial and fiduciary reporting, face-to-face status reviews,
monthly team meetings, bi-weekly meetings with team leads, and weekly meetings our operations,
executive team and DOE. As our supporting slides show, the NAABB investigators have already credited
the NAABB program with over 20 manuscripts in print or under review in peer reviewed journals. We
have also developed a website with regular highlights. We have an obligation to protect intellectual
property, make it available first to our partners for licensing opportunities. Once this obligation is met,
any IP not licensed is then made available to the general public through the innovating institution.
Further, NAABB investigators have made over 100 presentations at national and international
conferences. Our investigators have and are coordinating technical sessions at national conferences.
Page 12 of 223