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: 4 Criteria Score: 5 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 7 Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 4 There was little justification for the use of extreme cultures (to pH) in terms of the Biomass Program goals of large scale cultivation. What is the resource of this kind of water? Where is it found, and what is the opportunity to grow under these conditions? Very little data other than calibration curves for Nile Red was shown, so there is little real contribution to basic science yet. Overall, its commercial application is as of yet poorly defended. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4 Preliminary techno economic modeling of a conceptual alakaline cultivation and harvest system and identification of possible geographies are needed to define relevance. Presenter Response We strongly disagree with the very negative comment here. This project has so far led to a provisional patent and a peer-reviewed publication with at least two to three others in the works. 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: 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: 7 I interpret the CSFs presented as reasonable assessments. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5 It would be good to close the loop on the contract by studying competitors and predators (including pathogens) that develop/are present under the high pH growing conditions and when algae are being grown up for biomass vs lipid accumulation. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 7 1. High pH conditions help maintain the stability of the culture and lipid productivity. 2. Organisms adapted to low value alkaline/saline conditions. 3. Outdoor tests show competitive rates and total yields of TAG accumulation. Page 80 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: 4 Criteria Score: 5 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 7 Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 5 The open pond growth data is over 24 days. That's a long time. How does this compare to commercial standard biomass productivities, and lipid production thereof. There was little comparison of data to a baseline expectation of any production level that would support scale up. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3 Definition of a viable alkaline cutlivation system is critical to success. Presenter Response We will be defining a best case alkaline system based on the open pond tests in summer 2011. 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 This aspect could be improved. After the larger scale raceway experiments, there should be some exposure to the OBP group at large. Publications have been forthcoming. Reviewer: 2 Publications and presentations are being made at good level. The work yet to be accomplished will determine how successful tech transfer can be. Reviewer: 3 1. Signed NDA’s with a number of companies on the bicarbonate work and are in license discussions with a large company in this area. 2. Considering patenting strains 3. Peer reviewed publications 4. Task 3 Outdoor open pond tests at USU Reviewer: 4 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 A patent application has been submitted applied for the bicarbonate results. However, no commercial partners have been identified. Reviewer: 6 I did not see much other than a reference to University Partners. Reviewer: 7 many of the listed publications in the presentation slides are not directly related to this work. Page 81 of 223
Page 1 and 2:
2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 79: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?