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. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Publications are in hand already. The project appears to be self-contained. What comparisons with other oil production rates are expressed? No simple comparisons can be found. Reviewer: 2 This is a new project and does not yet have tech transfer. Reviewer: 3 Cellana should talk to RAE, as they have developed an apparently efficient way of harvesting algal biomass. Reviewer: 4 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 The potential for technology transfer is good. Reviewer: 6 The project seemed fine in this area. Reviewer: 7 It would be very valuable to share the results of screening 500 strains of algae, and how the screening results compare to real world productivity. Because of the focus and reliance on high value co-products, the design report will likely have limited value for advancing large scale biofuel technology. 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 My overall impression is that there could be more value to this project that could be achieved. There are questions about the ways the cycle time is being calculated, and some comments about how yields are expressed that also detract from perceptions. Reviewer: 2 This is a project with great potential; its success depends upon transparency, accurate comparisons etc. These factors are required to recognize problems and correct them. Reviewer: 3 Slide 12 on productivity claims "Sustained Productivity" of 200 MT dw per ha per year. How do they propose to achieve this, when best-case scenario on sustained productivity of microalgae is 20-30 g per square m per d (~100 MT dw per ha per y)? There are concerns regarding the proposed approaches by Cellana: 1- Random mutagenesis to generate and isolate strains with enhanced lipid production would not work. It is the wrong biological approach, the reason being that mutagenesis tends to eliminate single enzymatic steps or processes but it is not designed to induce enhanced generation of a specific biosynthetic pathway and accumulation of product. Moreover, chemical, UV or similar mutagenesis Page 24 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. would introduce, with certainty, multiple (dozens or hundreds) of mutations that invariably lower fitness of the organism, resulting in lower overall growth and productivity. 2- Reference was made to algal "husbandry" by which to improve microalgal productivity. Aside from the bad choice of term, husbandry entails genetic crosses, something that is not known to occur by, let alone controlled in microalgae. Cellana ought to seek help with their proposed approaches to avoid going down the wrong path(s) in their otherwise valuable effort. What is 4 in-pond harvesting processes?? 3 out-of-pond harvesting processes?? These need to be explained. Reviewer: 4 Overall Impression: 3 The cultivation ponds and ability to conduct aquaculture feed co-product studies are impressive. A major problem was that the presentation gave the impression that Cellana was achieving 100-150 MT/ha-yr of algae production in the ~1000-m2 ponds depicted in the aerial photo. Upon inquiry, the presenter clarified that that productivity was achieved over the short term in 200-L tanks. In addition, total dry matter was presented, not the relevant characteristic, ash free dry weight. This came across as an effort to mislead the reviewer panel and DOE. In addition, the target of ~200 MT/ha-yr was presented but without any serious discussion of how the capability to achieve that extraordinary productivity would be developed. "Hydrodynamically-induced flashing light" was listed as one of the methods to improve productivity, but this classical effect is operative only at the milli-second scale, and the energy consumption to achieve that scale through mixing would be too large for a good energy ROI. In-pond sedimentation and "sweeping" was touted as a major advance, but the equipment needs and costs to make use of this process at the 1000-acre scale need to be projected to determine if it is feasible. Other issues not addressed include: Wet extraction studies were conducted, but what was the solvent loss rate? What is the ratio of PBR ground coverage to pond area, and how does that relate to overall areal productivity and costs? The presentation stated 3 years of consortium operation, $90 million invested, 20% completion on the DOE project, but the main results seem to be construction of the facility (good). Very few data were presented for a project touting this level of maturity. How was the figure of $90 million invested arrived at? Reviewer: 5 The presentation described a very conventional algal production process. The primary value of funding this facility is its potential to test different processes at a large scale. Although it is very early in the project, I am concerned whether the 9M in funding will yield results that will be useful to the biomass program. Reviewer: 6 The progress presented seems very small compared to the amount of money invested (over 90 million). Reviewer: 7 This project may have great value in developing algae of aquaculture feed, but it is not on a path to commercialize large scale biofuel production. The value of the whole algae production optimized to aquaculture feed needs to be rigorously compared to the value of biofuel plus lipid extracted algae meal. It appears very likley that the economics are much better for optimized whole algae aquaculture feed than they are for biofuel production with coproducts. Page 25 of 223
Page 1 and 2: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 23: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 75 and 76:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223:
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

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

Delete template?

Save as template?