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. 4. Critical Success Factors Please evaluate the degree to which: 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 end-use) iv. Environmental sustainability (example: water use, GMOs, energy consumption) Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 6 These CSFs have been stated in the presentation. They also are tied to each thrust. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 6 Genomics' concentration must be demonstrated to be worthwhile at intensity developed. Disease/competitor problems must be overcome; stochastic events that cause crashes must be modelled realistically and costed. Probiotic bacterial angle likely to be significant. The most important thing now is to show cost-effective production of algal lipids to methane to bioproducts. Scale concerns must be met. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 8 The project has systematically identified all possible factors and barriers that need be addressed for a successful outcome. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 4 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 5 Unfortunately, there was not enough detail for evaluation. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 5 Please evaluate the degree to which: 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 Other than slide 2, not much in this area. The project has presented adequate plans to recognize, address, and overcome these factors. This was a weakness to the presentation as little discussion or mechanism by which this would be approached was presented. 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 14 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. end-use) iv. Environmental sustainability (example: water use, GMOs, energy consumption) The PI consistently showed Sustianability as a large "arrow" at the bottom of the slide that suggested it was to be the overall driver. However, the driving criteria for sustainability and how they would be imposed for the downselection was not apparant. Then again, to proper evaluate a consortium of this size, a full day should have been given to their presentation. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 6 Success factors have been clearly recognized. At the current state of technology definitive plans to overcome and address these factors can not be defined. Plans appear to be appropriately focused on determining the feasibility of potential solutions that might be contributed to a viable biofuel pathway. Successful demonstration of feasibilities will provide an opportunity to impact commmercial viability. More emphasis is needed on developing ameasurement system to quantify strain productivity which is validated against long term outdoor cultivation. Presenter Response 5. Technology Transfer and Collaborations Please comment on the degree to which the project adequately interfaces and coordinates with other institutions and projects to provide additional benefits to the Biomass Program, such as publications, awards, or others. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 This project will require an extraordinary level of coordination to deliver the outcomes. There are no apparent public strategies or demonstration strategies that would be valuable. The use of iPhone is open to question. There are already journal publications. Reviewer: 2 Tech transfer of raceway design, acoustic focussing etc. is strong. Pubs and presentations look good. Critical year ahead to demonstrate cost-effectiveness of biofuel production at scale required. Reviewer: 3 Too soon to tell. Reviewer: 4 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 The project appears to be highly coordinated, but the project is too large (and presentation too short) for adequate review of this topic. Reviewer: 6 This was quite extensive but might actually be the Achilles heel of this program. The collaborations are so extensive, and the expectations of large scale microalgae production for fuels so overstated, the PI might find it difficult to down select to the final process. There is concerne that the number of collaborations is too big for a single PI to manage. Page 15 of 223
Page 1 and 2: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 13: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 65 and 66:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?