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.
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