Proposal Panel Responses: 1819934
Agency Name: National Science Foundation
Agency Tracking Number: 1819934
Panel Summary
What is the proposed innovation?
This SBIR Phase I project proposes to construct, deliver, and install new urban farming systems using cultivar-specific, energy-efficient LED lighting.
What are the broader/commercial impacts of the proposed innovation?
The broader/commercial impact of the proposed project, if successful, will be to support remote locations with fresh produce. Target groups include disaster relief, humanitarian aid (e.g., refugee camps) and food deserts.
Strengths:
+ A patent is in place defining water cooled LED technology combining energy efficiency with spectral control.
+ Demonstrates a sound approach for establishing technical and commercial feasibility via a prototype.
+ Qualified team.
+ The technology can be used with different crops.
Weaknesses:
– Concerned about the recirculating water used to cool the LEDS being returned to hydroponics as waste heat.
– Pest and disease pressures are not addressed and nutritional advantages are not supported.
– Plant canopy embedded sensors are not explained.
– More information required on the mechanism by which they can increase photon flux.
– Light is not likely the major limitation to container production.
– A number of competitors in container production.
– The commercialization plan was unclear.
Suggestions:
* None.
The summary was read by/to the panel and the panel concurred that the summary accurately reflects the panel discussion.
PANEL RECOMMENDATION: Not Competitive
Proposal Review 1 : 1819934
Agency Name:
National Science Foundation
Agency Tracking Number:
1819934
Organization:
NSF Program:
SMALL BUSINESS PHASE I
PI/PD:
Ray, Jim
Application Title:
SBIR Phase I: Next Generation Agriculture: Mobile, Energy Efficient, High Yield, and Cultivar Specific
Rating:
Good
Review
Summary
In the context of the five review elements, please
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to intellectual merit.
Strengths
Net Zero Agriculture (Net0Ag) aims to develop new urban farming systems by 1) identifying specific wavelengths optimal for different periods of plant growth for different crops and cultivars, and 2) combine with new cooling technologies, making energy-efficient LED lighting much more cost efficient.
This work will advance understanding about photophysics and plant biology, examining improved energy efficiency of LEDs, and wavelength profile adjustment for specific cultivars. They will develop various algorithms to better optimize use of LEDs. This work will also study cooling systems that may enable supercharging LEDs so that fewer LEDs are needed, resulting in net reduction in energy and LED costs.
The activities explore the integration of different complementary approaches working towards the transformative concept of cultivar-specific LED light growth for improved urban farming. The combination of wavelength specific LED signals along with cooling system to enable superpowering LEDs is unique and original.
In the context of the five review elements, please
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to broader impacts.
Strengths
Stationary units reduce acreage while simultaneously increasing yield for suitable crops. The development of closed-loop, off-grid farming systems will lower food costs, which in turn will improve quality of life in low-income areas. Growing more food in urban areas will help with consumer education of where their food comes from, about local production, about freshness in food, and consequently nutritional benefits. Net0Ag success will also mean food can be growing as it is being transported, which is important for disaster relief, humanitarian aid (e.g. refugee camps), or military operations. Bringing commercial Net0Ag units to geographic locations that are otherwise not amenable to farming is another important nutritional and food security impact.
If successful, the economic impact of combined advances in indoor agriculture will have an impact on food security and in industries such as LED manufacturing, shipping container refurbishment, hydroponic growth media suppliers, and the metal fabrication industry.
Please evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of the proposal with respect to any additional solicitation-specific review criteria, if
applicable
Strengths
The proposal is well written, and the proposed activities are well-reasoned, organized and based on a rationale that brings together cutting edge advancements and patent-pending technologies.
Weaknesses
Net0Ag is weaker in customer traction and path to commercialization, but is pursuing protection. What is not clear is whether the supercharging of LEDs will lead to a shorter lifespan of LED lights. This may increase costs, and contribute to the landfill issue they point out as LEDs have a number of very toxic components.
The commercialization plan was weak. While natural disasters are important, providing food in portable growing systems is not going to develop a weekly or monthly business model. Unfortunately, the same holds for regions where food can not be grown or low income areas. These all are very noble goals. Yet the mainstream market and sales plan needs to be better developed.
—
The team seems more than adequate to accomplish the work plan, with backgrounds specific and varied to take the idea to market.
Resources seem to be more than adequate, and the personnel are dedicated to see the project through.
Summary Statement
The project is very appealing, integrating use of algorithms to optimize use of LEDs and combining with cooling technologies to create potential efficiencies in growing plants. Yet the commercialization plan needs more thorough development.
Proposal Review 2 : 1819934
Agency Name:
National Science Foundation
Agency Tracking Number:
1819934
Organization:
NSF Program:
SMALL BUSINESS PHASE I
PI/PD:
Ray, Jim
Application Title:
SBIR Phase I: Next Generation Agriculture: Mobile, Energy Efficient, High Yield, and Cultivar Specific
Rating:
Fair
Review
Summary
In the context of the five review elements, please
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to intellectual merit.
+ The team has nearby access to expertise in photobiology and LED technologies and their work is associated with University of Kentucky, Bowling Green.
+ The lighting system (water-cooled LEDs) combines energy efficiency with wavelength control.
+Patent protection on water-cooled LED lighting system and working on provisional patent for the spectral shifting capability.
– Modifying the LED spectrum to optimize plant growth requires further validation of matching spectrum for different crops and/or developmental phases.
– This system will not prevent potential entry of pests and diseases, contrary to the claim. The team should have a contingency plan in place.
– Concerned about the recirculating water used to cool the LEDS being circulated through the hydroponics. Waste heat might be too great and if its hydroponic solution then salt issues with the LED cooling.
– No information given about the plant canopy embedded sensors that will be used to provide feedback on growth performance to lighting spectrum.
– Plenty of competitors in container production. Other than the LED cooling system, it was not clear how this company will compete. They acknowledge that they need to bring this to market quickly to catch up with competitors.
– Salad crops do not likely require real high intensity lighting.
In the context of the five review elements, please
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to broader impacts.
+ Self-contained, portable food production systems may have value in unique cases, such as remote locations and urban food deserts.
– The claim that this system is more cost-effective than conventional methods was not fully illustrated in the proposal. Comparing systems using a scenario with leafy greens at $14/lb does not seem like a valid cost comparison. A lifecycle analysis might help support their claim.
– System cost of $50,000 seems reasonable (large controlled environment chambers are in this range) but it is unclear what it includes for this system.
Please evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of the proposal with respect to any additional solicitation-specific review criteria, if
applicable
Summary Statement
The company has developed a portable, controlled environment (container) with novel, hydroponic lighting that may be able to maximize crop productivity (increase container production efficiency). There is little in this proposal that is novel, other than perhaps the lighting system. There was little explained about how the entire system functions.
Proposal Review 3 : 1819934
Agency Name:
National Science Foundation
Agency Tracking Number:
1819934
Organization:
NSF Program:
SMALL BUSINESS PHASE I
PI/PD:
Ray, Jim
Application Title:
SBIR Phase I: Next Generation Agriculture: Mobile, Energy Efficient, High Yield, and Cultivar Specific
Rating:
Good
Review
Summary
In the context of the five review elements, please
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to intellectual merit.
Strengths:
+ A patent is in place defining water cooled LED technology
+ Demonstrates a sound approach for establishing technical and commercial feasibility via a prototype
+ Qualified team. The team has a founder of the technology and good science background related to the target outcome. No issues on the science side.
+The cropping of indoor plants is becoming more common
+ The technology can be used with any crop as far as I can tell.
Weaknesses.
– The thought that sterility or pest and disease pressure will be no issue is not supported.
– The statement that the food will have nutritional advantages is misplaced.
– The number of prototypes and sizes proposed for release is ambitious. It would may be advantageous to identify a single market.
– I did not understand the mechanism by which they would release 10X the number of photosynthetic photons by unit.
– Light is not the major limitation. It is my understanding that excess light will cause bleaching and chloroplast avoidance and resultant oxidative damage to the plant cells.
– It would have been useful to see in a life cycle whether using fewer LEDs was a major economic driver to the urban farmer? Energy is cheap and LEDs are efficient, therefore is it cents or dollars per crop?
In the context of the five review elements, please
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to broader impacts.
Strengths
+ Compelling value proposition/competitive advantage. The product, being an LED light that is cooled by water, is a novel concept and could be adapted to these closed loop systems.
+ The successful completion of the aims will provide the company with a value proposition from which to examine scale up. They are priced reasonably and understand their competition and their price points. It seems like a very transparent industry for pricing and the other companies in this area are not way out in front of them.
+ The market size remains unclear
+ It is an enabling technology as it pairs with existing technology and all plants regardless of being GMO or non.
+ No regulatory needed
Weaknesses
– Company’s position to attract private funding is difficult to judge but if they prove their technology can be effective or find the mechanism that they can adapt to existing systems they could license it.
Please evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of the proposal with respect to any additional solicitation-specific review criteria, if
applicable
Summary Statement
What is novel, about Netzeros growth system is the use of a water cooled LED light system in combination of other growth chamber elements as growth chambers for growing vegetables in closed loop. The LEDs are the cornerstone of the system and they have specific wavelengths established and a method to make them use less energy. The team have a track record in this area and have developed a path for IP and prototype design. They propose to build a prototype as rapidly as possible during the PhaseI as they express concern over competition and the pace of the field. The proposal lacked some detail needed to evaluate the claimed disruptive discovery, in the form of whether this would save money in the long run, and whether the proposed wavelengths would result in large advantages in yield.
