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.
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