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 Criteria Score: 5 Some listing of legitimate CSFs was presented. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5 A strong management structure that links PI's goals and ensures a focus on end goals is critical (and was not apparent from presentation). Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 8 Critical success factors to technical and commercial viability: Integration of research projects with commercial partners. Achieve milestones and deliverable on time. Continuous review of projects to retain commercial relevance. Potential Challenges to overcome and to achieve project results: With 21 academic participants, communication between labs and commercial partners will be essential. With only two industrial partners, commercial research focus will be much easier to mamage. Demonstrate how project will advance the commercial viability of biomass: Sapphire projects are directly tied to viability of first integrated algal biorefinery - due to start operations in 2012. Life Technology projects will enter market as research tools in 2011. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 5 Unfortunately, there were no detailed descriptions about how achievement of milestones will change or not change goals or collaborations between laboratories. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 5 See Overall Impressions Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3 No evidence of indentification of critical factors as defined above was presented. Presenter Response 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 Coordination will be one of the big challenges for this program. Reviewer: 2 Just starting. Reviewer: 3 CAB-Comm works closely with Sapphire Energy in the area of Tech transfer Page 36 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: 5 Potential for technology transfer is good given that this is a multi-institutional collaboration. Reviewer: 6 See Overall Impressions Reviewer: 7 Within the consortium there is a broad group of academic and industrial partners. No plan for outside communications and co-operation was given. Presenter Response 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 This project has potential. The investigator was not happy with the reduced scope, but it is hoped this becomes a non-issue in favor of real progress. Reviewer: 2 Project needs integrated milestones and goals to succeed. PIs can be expected to do good basic science. Reviewer: 3 Interesting and well handled presentation. Telling it like it is without exaggeration and false promises. Impressive group of investigators in CAB-Comm, increases the credibility and likelihood of success of this effort. The planning is good, critical progress and direction control items are in place and, therefore, there is a strong likelihood of useful results emanating from this effort. Reviewer: 5 Since this project just began, it was inappropriate to evaluate progress. However, the presentation lacked descriptions about the role of each laboratory and how achievement of milestones will change or not change goals or collaborations between laboratories. Reviewer: 6 As this was just funded it is very difficult to review. It is clear that the presenter has a good perspective on the field (he nailed the P issue on the head) but the "world is about to collapse" terminology could be avoided as a motivational tool. Also, funding each PI 100,000K equally is likely to keep this a program that only produces individual work, by each PI, and could undermine any chance of building up a true consortium that develops a process. Reviewer: 7 Although this is a new project, the presentation of scope, goals, and approach did not meet minimum expectations. Page 37 of 223
Page 1 and 2: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 35: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 87 and 88:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?