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.
technologies are suitable for biofuel production, it has provided a good framework for organizing the
research program. Thus, the objectives of the funded projects are in-line with what is needed to resolve
the many questions on algae biofuel production.
Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 8
Good presentation of Program goals and objectives.
Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 0
Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 7
It is important to recognize these research activities as a long term effort with low probability of success,
with the potential for very high benefits. The focus on productivity, harvesting, de-watering, extraction
and process economics is highly relevant. Algal biofuels projects for specific geographies do not support
platform goals and technical targets because the geographies have not been chosen based on science.
Some of the detailed work on co-products, upgrading oil to fuel, and risk assessment appears to be
premature because a neither commercial strains nor commercial processes have been identified.
2. Approach
Please evaluate the degree to which:
Platform approaches are effective, as demonstrated by the extent to which: Platform milestones and
organization; project portfolio; and strategic directions facilitate reaching Program Performance Goals as
outlined in the MYPP
The Platform portfolio is focused and balanced to achieve Biomass Program and Platform goals, as
demonstrated by: Work Breakdown Structure; unit operations; and pathway prioritization Please explain
your score by commenting on the strengths and weakness evaluated
What changes would increase the effectiveness of the Platform?
Reviewer Comments
Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 5
There was a framework established for constructing the evaluation of algae as a potential feedstock for
biofuels production in the future. As mentioned previously, there did not appear to be significant evidence
of direction-setting using technoeconomic assessments. The portfolio should then be balanced with
respect to the key drivers. It may be that most of the funds should be spent on biology, since without
adequate productivity per organism, algae will not be a cost-viable feedstock. One would like to hit this
hard so as to be able to come to a decision point in FY2013 or FY2014. Part of the OBP program should
be a rapid identification of those feedstocks that are viable and those that are not, so as to be able to
throttle expenditures here and spend more on the next economic bottlenecks.
As a general comment, some of the programs are doing a better job at the WBS to provide useful
deliverables, while others would seem to require some oversight.
Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5
The type of review meeting held here should be useful to the personnel of the projects. Some of the
projects have great focus by dedicated and expert scientists/engineers. However, there are a number of
weak projects in the current portfolio. It is especially important that modelling projects use realistic input
data and have excellent knowledge of background literature. In some cases, the goals are appropriate to a
project but the likelihood of success by that group of investigators is low due to mismatched expertise.
Page 3 of 223