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. 3. Project Relevance The project both identifies with and contributes to meeting the platform goals and objectives of the Biomass Program Multi-Year Program Plan The project has considered applications of the expected outputs Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 2 It is difficult to judge the true relevance. Certainly alternative, high lipid feedstocks can be considered a Platform goal. It is not clear whether this duckweed is a legitimate choice for a feedstock. It grows rapidly in some places, is easier to harvest than algae probably, and there are lipids and starches produced. But there was no discussion as to why choose duckweed? Some catalog of the reasons for this organism as opposed to all others should be a basis, but is not presented. What previous work has been done? Is there some primitive technical analysis and even LCA that justifies this project? Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 4 There is a large degree of transcriptomics/genomics work here that appears to represent excellent basic science; its payoff for biofuels' development is hard to evaluate because applications are beyond the scope of the project. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 5 Unclear. Although potentially good science, how could this approach translate into oil accumulation in Lemna? This is not discussed. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 0 Relevance has not been established. See other comments. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 2 Duckweed is an interesting model plant system but there is no objective evidence that duckweed production systems are viable for large scale production. In the absence of such evidence, this project is not relevant to program goals. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4 If the duckweed productivity is as high as claimed, and if harvest and dewatering is easy, then the biomass should be a good feedstock even without high oil content. Presenter Response As we described in the presentation, duckweed is the smallest flowering plant, with one of the highest increases in biomass among known species. Given the very high level of investment in microalgae to date, both in the private and public sector, a reluctance to consider alternatives such as macroalgae and aquatic flowering plants is certainly understandable. However, the very high yields and ease of harvest are very well established, and our project therefore focuses on the promise of increasing lipid content. 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 Page 196 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. 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: 1 This analysis is sorely needed for this project. The baseline estimation of 1) technical likelihood of success at creating a high lipid strain by genetic manipulation; and 2) given other attempts at creating high lipid organisms, what is the most likely level achievable with duckweed; and 3) given the best estimates, and coupling with growth rates and other feedstock generation features, what is the productivity and value as an endproduct? The question then can be addressed whether the project is worth doing under the most favorable outcomes. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 4 If turions can not be turned into oil storage structures, the project will not have met its goals. What would be the PI's default strategy for making a contribution to biofuels' development? Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 5 Unclear. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 3 See comment on approach Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 3 The project has defined and addressed critical success factors within its narrow focus of molecular biology. However, the project is unlikely to impact the viability to biomass feedstock supply and conversion. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4 Success appears to be determined by the productivity of duckweed and potential use as biofuel feedstock. Presenter Response We have already accomplished two of the critical success factors - determining the gene catalog of duckweed, and developing an efficient transformation protocol, as we described in the presentation. While the typical lipid content of vegetative fronds varies from only 2-9%, concentrations of up to 26% have been observed in cultures augmented with phytohormones (Chang et al. 1978, Le Pabic 1980). Depletion of nitrogen or total minerals has been shown to induce turion formation (Czopek 1963, Henssen 1954), and indeed Cheng and Stomp (2009) found enhanced starch accumulation under a regime of 5-day post-growth transfer to water. We plan to profile this developmental shift to determine whether full turion induction is necessary for substantial accumulation of stored energy. Page 197 of 223
Page 1 and 2:
2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
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: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 195: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 223: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?