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.
i.e. simplify the process of feedstock production. •The tools that would be developed (MFA, MCA of
microalgae) can be further used for directed strain improvement.
Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 5
See Overall Impressions text.
Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 3
There was no compelling explanation of how the results of this research would be relevant to DOE goals.
Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 1
MFA applied to a lab strain and identifying factors (for lipid biosynthesis) will not be particularly helpful
to open pond production.
Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4
Project should strive to demonstrate early evidence of relevance
Presenter Response
Reviewer 1: The reviewer was asked here to comment about project relevance: Slide 17 discusses the
relevance of the project. Instead reviewer 1 refers here to slide 18 “4 - critical success factors” and calls it
“depressing”. We assumed that slide 18 basically was intended to answer the question: What are possible
reasons why the project could fail? What can be done in each case? For example we describe what could
be done if Chlamydomonas was successfully engineered but turns out not to be suitable for mass
production. Reviewer 5: “No compelling argument”. We disagree. The anticipated results are relevant to
DOE goals. On slide 17 we state: “Since the goal is to increase oil yield, our research improves the
economics of biofuel production” (feedstock supply). Feedstock supply relates to the MYPP document,
FT-C. In similar, the algal biofuels roadmap states on p. 6 under “OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO
ALGAL BIOFUELS: TECHNOLOGY GOALS” as a goal: “Investigate genetics and biochemical
pathways for production of fuel precursors”. On slide 17 we state: 2) High oil yields achieved under
continuous growth allows for a continuous production process, i.e. simplify the process of feedstock
production. Furthermore, the tools we develop (MFA, MCA of microalgae) can be further used for
directed strain improvement of commercial strains. Related to this, p. 6 of the roadmap document states
under “OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO ALGAL BIOFUELS: TECHNOLOGY GOALS”: “Achieve
robust and stable cultures at a commercial scale” Reviewer 6: Our goals are relevant for the algae-tobiofuels
program. That our results cannot be applied to open ponds is an opinion of the reviewer.
4. Critical Success Factors
The project has identified critical factors, (including technical, business, market, regulatory, and legal
factors) that impact the potential technical and commercial success of the project
The project has presented adequate plans to recognize, address, and overcome these factors
The project has the opportunity to advance the state of technology and impact the viability of commercial
algal biomass feedstock supply and conversion, through one or more of the following:
i. Cross-Cutting Analysis (ex. economic analysis, sustainability analysis, resource assessments, risk
assessments)
ii. Feedstock Supply R&D (ex. biology, cultivation, resource use, biomass characteristics,
harvesting/dewatering)
iii. Downstream Refining R&D (ex. extraction, conversion, fuel, products, fuel/product infrastructure and
Page 131 of 223