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: 2 Required additional work and documentation. Reviewer: 3 UNL directed spin off underway for algae biotechnology and biofuels (NU Green Technologies). Joint ventures with SR, CGC, NPPD resulting from this funding. Provisional patents filed for aspects of this funded research Reviewer: 4 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 No technology transfer activities were detailed. Reviewer: 6 No comment. Reviewer: 7 Prolific publication ensures tech transfer. 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 The investigators should close out by considering the detailed outcomes in hand and how they can advance the overall program. Starting new lines of inquiry into photobioreactors and other exploratory programs are not warranted. Reviewer: 2 Project appears to be following potentially interesting basic science directions but without as much focus on core milestones (sustainability, practicability, scaling) as is important. This reviewer has particular concern over the use and subsequent ability to eliminate algal viruses from the process; PIs should give this more attention in terms of scale/pragmatic concerns. Reviewer: 3 A multifaceted approach that is based on the expertise of current faculty members at the ULN, ranging from microalgae, viruses, molecular biology and photobioreactors. Strengths: the range of topic covered by the team. Challenges: integrating the currently existing expertise for the benefit of the Program. Reviewer: 4 Overall Impression: 2 Not enough information was provided for this reviewer to evaluate the results of -omics, virus, and Page 42 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. genetics aspects of the project. The nanobody research is meant to help in harvesting of algae, biofilm growth of algae, and provide a research tool. Algae can be flocculated and can grow in biofilms without nanobodies, so the importance is not clear. Nothing was said about the potential research applications of nanobodies. The slides do not provide much information about the photobioreactor research. However, PBRs were a larger component of the oral presentation. The speaker was not able to effectively defend the use of PBRs for biofuel production. The well-know problems include excessive total costs, the likelihood of negative energy ROI, and difficulty in controlling heating and gas exchange. When asked about the method of cooling, the speaker said that evaporation of the water will cool the system but that water loses would be minimal due to the double-layered design of the PBR. Of course, if the water re-condenses within the system, heat is not removed. The speaker did not appear to have the basic knowledge needed to design PBRs. Reviewer: 5 Although I agree that basic research may lead to improvements in strains and downstream processing, there was no aspect of this research that seemed likely to yield such improvements. Reviewer: 6 Tethered microalgal cells and photobioreactors for commercial scale production of microalgae is severly challenged. Reviewer: 7 From a process engineering perspective the project has failed to define a method for evaluating the commercial viability of concepts and has not defined criteria for success and decision points based on commerical scale processing requirements. Because proposed technologies of PBRs and nano-antibody structures have well defined techno economic hurdles, a clear pathway to overcome those hurdles is needed before meaningful research commences. Presenter Response The team at UNL, the PI, and the presenter appreciate the efforts and contributions of the review group in facilitating the achievement of the goals for the DOE algae biomass platform. While recognizing the contributions of the review team and the demands placed by the need to review a large number of projects in a short period of time, it is clear that the format of a 15-minute PowerPoint presentation followed by 5 minutes of questions is apparently inadequate for the reviewers to grasp the scope and vision of the UNL programs in algae biofuels and biotechnology. First the UNL team recognizes the importance of assessing the short-term needs of open raceway production of algae biomass as an initial step toward understanding the economical growth of algae at scale and the challenges faced with scale-up. These steps towards growing algae with 30 to 60 year old technology but at a much larger scale are indeed meritorious in actually achieving experience of algae production at 10 to 1000 hectare scales. In this context the UNL team applauds the landmark works by Dr John Benneman in the Aquatic Species Program that summarized the technology of 1980 to 1996 and predicted the production of algae biofuels at $60 per barrel. We also are well aware of the recent highly detailed and very sound techno-economic analysis by Dr Benneman and one of the reviewers that suggest it is impossible to produce algae at less than $300/barrel as of the review in 2010 with current technologies of open raceway growth. We also are aware of the recent techno-economic reviews that suggest economic biofuels production with algae is nearly impossible with raceway design, hexane extraction (a well known neurotoxin), and Page 43 of 223
Page 1 and 2: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 41: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 93 and 94:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?