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. Presenter Response 3. Project Relevance The project both identifies with and contributes to meeting the platform goals and objectives of the Biomass Program Multi-Year Program Plan The project has considered applications of the expected outputs Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 4 There are some good outcomes that have relevance. There are others that do not. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 3 PIs should refocus on core goals/milestones and do costing/scale-up calculations to justify that this is a sustainable biofuels' production process. In the absence of this, the types of processes and materials being developed and the bioreactor system itself raises conerns about the amount of energy input required to the biofuel's derived energy that will be available. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 7 - Development of an understanding of TAG oil formation in lipid bodies after N deprivation of microalgae, including de novo synthesis vs. redistribution of membrane lipids. - Development of novel nanobody based membrane linkage and cell harvesting systems. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 2 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 3 Unfortunately, the project's approach and results do not seem relevant to meeting platform goals and objectives. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 2 One cannot be relevant until the work is appropriately placed in the reports by Benneman and co-authors. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3 The engineered nano antibody work does not appeear to have commerical potential at scale. The reasoning for pursuing PBRs was vague and non-technical and did not show a pathway to overcome cost issues for PBRs that have been shown in techno-economic modeling. Presenter Response 4. Critical Success Factors The project has identified critical factors, (including technical, business, market, regulatory, and legal factors) that impact the potential technical and commercial success of the project The project has presented adequate plans to recognize, address, and overcome these factors The project has the opportunity to advance the state of technology and impact the viability of commercial algal biomass feedstock supply and conversion, through one or more of the following: Page 40 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. i. Cross-Cutting Analysis (ex. economic analysis, sustainability analysis, resource assessments, risk assessments) ii. Feedstock Supply R&D (ex. biology, cultivation, resource use, biomass characteristics, harvesting/dewatering) iii. Downstream Refining R&D (ex. extraction, conversion, fuel, products, fuel/product infrastructure and end-use) iv. Environmental sustainability (example: water use, GMOs, energy consumption) Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 4 These were not really addressed in the presentation. The project could use a review of these even at this stage of completion as part of a consideration of what the valuable deliverables should be. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 3 Demonstration of energy efficiency and sustainability of processing technologies under development is very important. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 7 Transition of basic molecular research to algae biofuels and bioproducts is a challenge that is being addressed by team approach involving multiple disciplines Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 2 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 3 The presenter was not successful in convincing me that this project would advance the state of biology or technology relative to platform goals. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 2 Most hurdles to photobioreactors were not well addressed in the data. The PI should revisit reports by Benneman and co-authors. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3 Project viability criteria based on commercial requirements were not presented, and no plan to overcome known barriers to commercialization of PBRs was given. 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 There have been a number of publications. There had to be internal coordination during the project. It is not clear whether the plans and results have been extensively shared within the OBP program participants. Page 41 of 223
Page 1 and 2: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 39: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 91 and 92:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?