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. composition is a function of species and growth conditions. Of the limitless combinations to test, their focus on "production" strains is sensible, but still the growth conditions and any hypothesized mechanisms to control composition are not discussed. In addition, what are the backup plans in case biomass production falls short of the needs for the rest of the research? The lab QAQC and analytical methods development work will put the project on a good footing from the start. More data were presented from this young project than from more established projects. But what are the details of the plans to develop real-time high-throughput methods for compositional analysis? Projections should be prepared on the economics of using enzymes, ionic liquids, etc. to be used as a baseline to evaluate performance and long-term prospects of the processes being developed. An estimate should be made for each process and envisioned integrated processes. The initial projections will no doubt be unfavorable, but this will help in planning the course of process development. Economic performance projections should be re-evaluated periodically as the results come in. The commercial partners should be expected to allow complete review and inspection of the data they generate in order to maintain confidence in the results. Reviewer: 5 Very nice presentation of a multi-institutional project. Reviewer: 6 The best consortium presentations by far. Reviewer: 7 The concepts of hydrolyzing and fermenting algae and lipid extracted algae are potentially enabling for algal biofuels. To determine how far the concepts are from commercialability quantitative goals for feasibility demonstration need to be defined. These should be based on preliminary techno-economic modeling and should include parameters such as yields, payloads, cycle times, enzyme costs, feedstock requirements. Presenter Response The rationale for the choice of strains for this work is based on 1) experience within the team, 2) overlap with existing programs, and 3) the fact that these strains are comparable to the best biofuel production strains in the literature (i.e. it is a combination of strain availability and experience with these strains in our indoor and outdoor production environment, growing them under different conditions, and at a scale that allows for high confidence in our ability to deliver the necessary biomass quality and quantity to the team). The strains are all maintained as part of the strain collection within the Laboratory for Algae Research and Biotechnology at Arizona State University and are all publically available. We will disclose the specific strains (and source) to the DOE and upon publication of results which will include the growth conditions utilized to achieve different biochemical compositions for a given strain. As discussed above in section 2, we are confident in our ability to supply the necessary biomass to meet the needs of the program as currently defined. As to the question around detail plans for real-time/high-throughput compositional analysis, based on encouraging preliminary results within the partner institutions, we will continue to develop, LC/MS analysis, Infrared (IR)-based spectroscopy methods and chemometric models for rapid compositional analysis with the goal to make these methods the default compositional analysis methods. Application of these methods may reduce compositional analysis time from days to less than an hour (e.g., NIR based Page 32 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. methods) and can also significantly reduce sample size (e.g., LC/MS). The results from these analyses can guide pretreatment and enzyme testing and development tasks and lead to a down-selection for strains best suited to fuel production (i.e. highest lipid and carbohydrate composition). These chemical compositional analysis studies will reveal to us what chemical additions to the pretreatment step (acids, bases, etc.) will be effective at recovering some of the sugars and assisting in the detailed process characterization around the different algal deconstruction, enzyme discovery and efficacy pathways we are exploring. Having an idea about the carbohydrate make-up of a cell is going to suggest potential enzyme preps that may be useful in the hydrolysis step and we feel this work will be equally applicable to whole algal biomass and to the algal biomass that remains after lipid extraction. The several constructive comments about techno-economic analysis throughout this review we acknowledge are spot on. We are focused, in a broad sense, on the ultimate goal of reducing costs to allow for economically viable and usable products, including biofuels, from algae. However, in the current funded scope we have acknowledged that we will have to leverage our technical results and make our data available to the many programs funded by the DOE that already are established in order to look at the technoeconomics of algae biofuel production - but may benefit from additional data to feed and exercise the models they are generating. The information and data we generate we will continue to actively seek to share within the community and ideally leverage, especially through the large-scale projects funded by the DOE such as the other algal consortia, the significant emphasis and defined scope of which is already established by the DOE for technoeconomics of biofuel production from algal biomass. Project: 9.5.1.6 CABComm Title: Proposed research activities for the Consortium for Algal Biofuels Commercialization Presenter: Paul Falkowski Presentation Date: Thursday, April 07, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 5.17 0.90 6 Progress 5.33 0.94 6 Relevance 5.50 0.76 6 Critical Success Factors 5.17 1.46 6 1. Project Approach The project performers have implemented technically sound research, development, and deployment approaches and demonstrated necessary results to meet their targets The project performers have identified a project management plan that includes well-defined milestones and adequate methods for addressing potential risks. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 5 The approach seems reasonable for such a disparate, multi-pronged program Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5 Project has just started. Presentation did not outline goals and management strategies clearly. While many good people are involved, some concern was raised by the presentation, which stated that award monies would be evenly divided among PIs; some goals, especially the larger-scale ones that are so critical, Page 33 of 223
Page 1 and 2: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 31: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 83 and 84:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?