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 The program has not been defined adequately in ultimate objectives to suggest whether there will be tech transfer beneficial to the OBP efforts. Reviewer: 2 The culture collection transfer to Canada is a solid achievement but its relevance to biofuels' development may require additional demonstration. Reviewer: 3 This is primarily with Canada. PIs are urged to deposit strains in a recognized algal library in the US (e.g. UTEX) and overseas. Reviewer: 5 The potential for significant technology transfer is very limited. Reviewer: 7 It does not appear that the investigators did a thorough lieterature review. Presenter Response 5.A. The mechanism for funding this project in very small increments and the short time allotted to the presentation led to a decision to focus on short term goals. Potential tech transfer opportunities are most like to arise from the identification of superior strains and their subsequent evaluation in productionrelevant conditions. 5.B. Demonstration of the value of the new isolates is certainly necessary for any measure of relevance. Whether that takes place within the partnership or is carried out by other investigators will depend on many factors such as future funding for follow on work or partnership discussions with other stakeholders. 5.C. See response 2.A. 5.D. See response 5.A. and 5.B. 6. Overall Impressions Please provide an overall evaluation of the project, including strengths, weaknesses, the project approach, scope, and any other overall comments. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 The investigators failed to explain the reasons for the work, nor describe the ultimate value to be gained. If there was a political desire to work with Canada, I would think that some better projects could have been developed, or the explanation performed better. Reviewer: 2 Characterization of the biofuels' potential of the isolated strains would make the project's outcome clearer, especially in the context of a comparison of existing biofuels' feedstock strains. Page 222 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: 3 Project overlaps other supported Algal Biomass projects where the emphasis is on "prospecting". The Aquatic Species Program already undertook this propecting approach some 20+ years ago. Reviewer: 5 This appeared to be a very traditional approach to strain collection and screening (although focusing on strains collected in Canada). Given past failures by other such projects, this approach, there seems little reason to support this project. Reviewer: 7 There are sound scientific reasons for this project to have a very low probablity of advancing biofuel technology. There is no identified sound scientific reason to pursue macroalgae biofuel production in northern climates. Presenter Response 6.A. The time constraints and strict format for each presentation made it difficult to discuss the reasons for the work in any detail. The value of indigenous production strains for local deployment should have been made more explicit. 6.B. Characterization of the isolates was noted in the future work section. I agree that it would be useful to compare productivity with some benchmark strains, and we will include that in our future plan. 6.C. The trains isolated for the ASP were isolated from water samples primarily from the southwest and southeast US with some sampling done in Hawaii and the northwest. The most interesting of those strains were transferred to the University of Hawaii for curation and many if not most of those have been lost. If the hypothesis that indigenous strains can be more competitive in local cultivation systems is true, then it certainly follows that local sampling and strain isolation is a valid start to a new biofuels project. Beyond that, we are beginning to see local communities push back against scale up of non-indigenous strains (e.g. in Texas and Hawaii). The ASP demonstrated that prospecting could be successful, but did not end the need for prospecting. 6.D. Presumably the comment refers to failure to successfully deploy the strains isolated in past efforts. Again this goes back to the notion that only “weed” algae can be successfully cultivated outdoors. If that were true then only heterotrophic algae can be expected to succeed, because regular production of high lipid biomass cannot be accomplished without long term cultivation of a production strain, whether that strain is a natural isolate or an engineered strain. 6.E. Nearly all worthwhile endeavors begin with a low probability of success. This project is a tiny element in a very large distributed endeavor. I would expect the scale of advance to match the resources available. Page 223 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:
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: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 221: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?