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. 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 There is little doubt that publications will result from this work. The project is in line with genomic and biology type work. Unless the fundamental questions are addressed as to outcome estimation, it is not known how this will benefit the Biomass Program. Reviewer: 2 The project is a sequencing and molecular biology project and publications in this area are good. Reviewer: 3 There is a company in Florida (Petroalgae) that is already cultivating Lemna to large scale for biomass and fuels generation. In the context of this EERE effort, it would be an enormous plus for the PIs of this project to link with this company and to work jointly in this endeavor. Collaboration with Petroalgae would afford an applied dimension to this project, which is a mission of the EERE program. Reviewer: 4 Several institutions involved. Commercial lemna technology firms were mentioned, but none are partners, which is a weakness. Reviewer: 5 Technology transfer within the basic sciences is likely. However, it is unlikely that the Biomass program will benefit. Reviewer: 7 Web portal to share data. Presenter Response We thank the reviewers for the excellent suggestion to partner with Petroalgae, which has already begun commercializing duckweed as an alternative to microalgae. The company raised significant capital through a recent IPO based on this technology. Our web portal is scheduled for release this summer and will provide an international hub for duckweed researchers world-wide. Our meeting at Cold Spring Harbor in 2009 was the first of its type for several decades, and brought together representatives from 3 companies (Biolex, BASF and Lemnatec) as well as academics from Japan, Europe, China and the USA. The participants have all agreed to contribute to the design and population of the web portal and associated databases. 6. Overall Impressions Please provide an overall evaluation of the project, including strengths, weaknesses, the project approach, scope, and any other overall comments. Page 198 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. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 I would like to be happy with this project. Another high lipid biomass feedstock with highly desirable cultivation, growth and productivity would be very desirable. The basic analysis of the reasons for doing this work were lacking from the presentation. Reviewer: 2 This project is likely to be successful in adding to our knowledge of duckweeds and lipid synthesis pathway controls (e.g., transcription factors). It is harder to evaluate its potential to contribute to commercial, sustainable biofuels' production. Reviewer: 3 This is mostly a basic research effort. Given the EERE support of this project, PIs ought to bring out and emphasize applied aspects in their work. Reviewer: 4 See other comments. Reviewer: 5 This is a basic science project that should be funded by NSF. It has no relevance to the DOE biomass program. Reviewer: 7 It is not clear if oil production will make the duckweed a better feedstock than starch production would. Presenter Response We thank the reviewers for their generally favorable comments, insight and advice. Project: 7.9.2.1 Old Dominion University Title: Developing new alternative energy in Virginia: Bio-diesel algae Presenter: Patrick Hatcher Presentation Date: Friday, April 08, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 5.29 1.16 7 Progress 5.43 1.50 7 Relevance 5.43 1.40 7 Critical Success Factors 4.14 1.25 7 1. Project Approach The project performers have implemented technically sound research, development, and deployment approaches and demonstrated necessary results to meet their targets The project performers have identified a project management plan that includes well-defined milestones and adequate methods for addressing potential risks. Page 199 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:
Page 147 and 148: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 197: 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?