Reviewer Comments - EERE
Reviewer Comments - EERE
Reviewer Comments - EERE
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
2011 Algae Platform Review – <strong>Reviewer</strong> <strong>Comments</strong><br />
<strong>Reviewer</strong> <strong>Comments</strong> are direct transcripts of commentary and material provided by the Platform’s<br />
Review Panel. They have not been edited or altered by the Biomass Program.<br />
insights subsequently to other green algal species. We see the potential of transformational discoveries<br />
that allows to overcome the long known principle limitation, that algae typically produce high amounts of<br />
lipid exclusively under nutrient stress.<br />
R6: The reviewer expresses here his negative view on the value of using model organisms. Also a<br />
negative view on Metabolic Flux Analysis (MFA), a method usually applied under well controlled<br />
laboratory conditions.<br />
Our proposal has a focus on the role of carbon partitioning, i.e. central metabolism in oil accumulation.<br />
Please note that in the <strong>EERE</strong> algal biofuels roadmap the goal to understand carbon partitioning was<br />
emphasized in a paragraph on p. 11.<br />
We disagree with the view that knowledge gained by MFA with the model species Chlamydomonas is<br />
irrelevant for commercial production in ponds. Calvin and coworkers dissected the reaction scheme of<br />
carbon fixation in photosynthesis using green algae under strictly controlled laboratory conditions. Their<br />
findings are the foundation to understand photosynthesis and biomass production in general as well as for<br />
green alga in ponds. In addition to the classical Calvin cycle, some years ago the presenting PI could<br />
describe an important novel functional mode in carbon fixation and oil synthesis (Schwender et al.,<br />
Nature 432: 779–782, 2004). This work was done by the use of MFA and underscores the value of this<br />
approach for improvement of oil production.<br />
Please see citations under “1 Approach”.<br />
Project: 9.1.3.2 INL<br />
Title: Microalgae Harvesting/Dewatering and Drying<br />
Presenter: Deborah Newby<br />
Presentation Date: Friday, April 08, 2011<br />
Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count<br />
Approach 4.29 0.70 7<br />
Progress 5.00 0.76 7<br />
Relevance 5.00 1.31 7<br />
Critical Success Factors 4.29 1.67 7<br />
1. Project Approach<br />
The project performers have implemented technically sound research, development, and deployment<br />
approaches and demonstrated necessary results to meet their targets<br />
The project performers have identified a project management plan that includes well-defined milestones<br />
and adequate methods for addressing potential risks.<br />
<strong>Reviewer</strong> <strong>Comments</strong><br />
<strong>Reviewer</strong>: 1 Criteria Score: 4<br />
The program approach is reasonable with one big question mark. Did anyone perform a simple energy<br />
and cost analysis for this particular filtration technology? The technology must have a chance of<br />
competing with other technologies. The presentation left me with the perception that the technique was<br />
chosen for other reasons, and no simple assessment was done.<br />
<strong>Reviewer</strong>: 2 Criteria Score: 4<br />
The project aims to lower the cost of harvesting and collecting algae and to recycle the water used by<br />
biomass facilities with new/improved processes. Several problems are apparent, but the project only<br />
began in October 2010, so there is opportunity to improve the project. One problem is that the filter<br />
Page 135 of 223