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. provided baseline estimates of land potentially suitable for open pond microalgae feedstock production along with water demand for various levels of biomass production. Initial results suggest that microalgae based biofuel has the potential to make a significant contribution to renewable fuel targets, however, water demand is likely to be high. Final results are ultimately species dependent which is represented in the growth model through input parameters that control the conversion of solar energy to biomass/lipids, in particular those associated with water temperature and light intensity. Impact of CO2 and other nutrients is the subject of current work in WBS 9.6.1.6. We chose a greenhouse configuration to represent the general features of closed systems in terms of temperature and evaporation control. The main focus of this study is a first step to identify resource demands and constraints on the production of microalgae, not the engineering details of open or closed systems. Our study presents a first of its kind high‐resolution spatiotemporal national assessment that brings to bear fundamental questions of where production can occur, how many land and water resources are required, and how much biofuel could be produced. --- [6.4a] Regarding CO2, see Response 3.7. We agree that growing season length needs to be considered and is currently being implemented under WBS 9.6.1.6. The biomass growth model provides hourly estimate of biomass production that will allow us to quantify biophysically and economically viable growing seasons. [6.4b] Our GIS-based land screening analysis is flexible and will allow inclusion of additional rulesets, including degraded agricultural land using metrics available in the USDA-NASS database. [6.4c] Our current study of saline water includes water requirements for blowdown; consideration of blowdown disposal is proposed for FY12. [6.4d] Re. the need for ground-truth data – see Response 1.2b. [6.4e] N/C --- [6.5] Re. the need for ground-truth data – see Response 1.2b. --- [6.6a] We agree with the need for ground truth data and operator perspective – see Response 1.2b. [6.6b] N/C [6.6c] See Response 1.2a for biomass productivity. Also, we are currently refining the model to account for CO2 and other required nutrients. [6.6d] N/C [6.6e] N/C [6.6f] Water use was calculated from our open pond model and is roughly equal to the water required to replace evaporative loss less precipitation. Biofuel production was based on biomass calculated from our growth model with a lipid content of 20% and an extraction/conversion efficiency of 80%. [6.6g] We are currently developing an estimate of available water supply that will be compared to site-specific freshwater demand. [6.6h] Our enhanced growth model will allow consideration of atmospheric CO2. [6.6i] N/C [6.6j] See Response 6.3. --- [6.7] We agree that the BAT needs further refinement to consider additional resource constraints and additional components of the lifecycle (see Responses 3.7, 4.3, 4.6a, 4.7, and 6.4). We agree this project will benefit from ground truth data and additional input from algae farmers/operators (see Response 1.2b) as part of the model review, refinement, and validation. We also agree with the need to estimate uncertainty; this is a subject of proposed research for FY12. As noted in Response 1.7, we do feel there are clear benefits to the scientific research community to share periodic and logical progressions within specific lifecycle stages; the current project has benefited from such presentations and publications by others, and our assumptions, results and contributions have been peer-reviewed by experts in the field and also contributed back to community in Wigmosta et. al (2011). Project: 9.1.3.1 INL Title: Algae-Based Biofuels Integrated Assessment Framework: Development, Evaluation, and Demonstration Presenter: Deborah Newby Presentation Date: Friday, April 08, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 4.43 1.05 7 Progress 4.57 1.29 7 Relevance 4.43 1.18 7 Page 100 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. Critical Success Factors 4.71 1.28 7 1. Project Approach The project performers have implemented technically sound research, development, and deployment approaches and demonstrated necessary results to meet their targets The project performers have identified a project management plan that includes well-defined milestones and adequate methods for addressing potential risks. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 6 The Approach builds upon previous feedstock supply modeling work which is a good starting point. Development of a model which allows for the cost productivity analyses to be performed for various operating schemes is desirable. One aspect that I may have mistaken is hardwiring in certain processing steps which are known to be too expensive. I hope that is not the case. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5 This modelling project will construct an Algae Logistics Model (ALM) of an Integrated Assessment Framework (IAF). BAT is included. These model components will be put together, and require lots of careful project coordination between partners. The model used flocculation and centrifugation in the model, simply because modelling data were available; however, these processes may make the process of recovery too expensive at the scale required for real algal biofuels' production. PIs need to mine older literature (e.g., Oswald, earlier DoE reports) for data to make a realistic (and productive) model. The species of algae that are cultured will make a big difference to models; I suggest PIs try to model at least one specific model. PI had concern that relevant "proprietary data" is making modeling difficult. Try to avoid this problem by seeing if current DoE-funded projects' can share data plus use older, published literature. The scale of the pond that is modelled may be too small. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4 Asystematic biophysical evaluation would be provided of resource demands and constraints on microalgae biofuel production Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 3 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 5 The goals of the project are to develop an algae logistics model and to provide baseline designs for algal systems. There seems to be considerable overlap with the NREL project "Algal biofuel pathway baseline costs." Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 5 Models can be a waste of time if the system modeled is nonsensical. The PI has followed the Solix image of a large microalgae farm in the middle of the desert surrounding a pilot plant. The obvious problem is that such a plant will not likely be built, as power plants are not generally built in the middle of nowehere. Page 101 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:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 99: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?