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.
into open ponds operated on a short interval - the PI did not demonstate much data supporting sound
research and deployment, other than a multitude of screening work developed. Little was said about the
large scale deployment and no project management plan was identified and the PI (Huntley) did not
present with the facility manager presenting instead. Milestones were absent and not well defiend.
Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4
The operation and optimization of the algae growth system appears to be technically sound, but the
approach, structure, and activities of the project appear to lack critical, objective review in the context of
large scale biofuel commercialization. The current effort appears to be directed at small-scale, high-value
algae products, and not at large scale biofuel production.
2. Technical Progress and Accomplishments
Please evaluate the degree to which the project has made progress in its objectives and stated project
management plan has met its objectives in achieving milestones and overcoming technical barriers.
Reviewer Comments
Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 5
Progress appears adequate to the extent of the program thus far.
Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5
The project is just beginning and only Cellana has begun initial work.
Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 7
More than 500 strains have been isolated and screened. Some have been subjected to pilot-scale growth
and production, as well as techno-economic and sustainability analysis based on (presumably) a prior
3+years of Consortium result.
Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 3
See Overall Impression text.
Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 4
The project was funded in Sept 2010 and results were very preliminary. Some of the results seemed to be
extrapolated from small scale experiments and assumptions were not always clear.
Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 3
Other than strain isolation and screening, little progress was identified other than statements of
achievements, some of which did not stand up under questioning. Milestones related to production of fuel
were made (gallons per acre per year) that were misrepresented. The PI should include all steps in the
growth process, including the area and time devoted to the production of the innoculum should be
included in the calculation of biomass productivity. One cannot only use the time that the innoculums
spend in the final grow out ponds. Finally, water use needs to be presented in terms of the amount of
product used. One should not say a goal has been met by reducing water use to 10,000 m 3 . This term has
to be relative to some measureble resource utilzied. 10,000 m 3 per WHAT?
Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3
The strength of the progress is the operation of an outdoor system producing 1 metric ton/month dry algae
biomass, but this needs to be viewed in the context of 1000 MT/day needed for an at-scale biofuel plant.
Data presented on productivity and economics lacked sufficient detail to be meaningful in the evaluation
Page 21 of 223