Reviewer Comments - EERE

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 Comments
Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 6
Models that help perform technoeconomic reviews without costly experimentation are valuable. Who will
hve access to the model? Who wll be served by its use? These questions impact the relevance. Also, the
model has to fit in its framework. In this case, the model must fit feedstock supply and transportation
scenarios at both ends to be valuable. This may help define the entire technology package to the refinery
gate, which would be very relevant.
Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 4
The project needs to demonstrate that its models are realistic (see Approach).
Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 3
This study provides DOE and industry with the first spatially-explicit estimate of open pond microalgae
production potential and resource demands for the conterminous United States. It realistically addresses
critical questions of how much energy can be produced, where production can occur, and how much land
and water resource will be required.
Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 3
See Overall Impression text.
Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 6
The project is highly relevant to program goals.
Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 5
The modeling effort is fine, in terms of competence of work, but the process the PI selects should be more
realistic. Instead of the model of a power plant based farm in the middle of desert-nowwhere one should
focus on the pond systems in the Gulf coast states or sewage treatment plants.
Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4
The integrated assesment has great potential value. The production and harvesting model built around
available data from non-viable operations compromised the relevance of the work. It is not clear how
much of the framework developed will be applicable to other scenarios. Acceptance of the modeling and
sharing of data and concepts from other institutions are necessary for relevance.
Presenter Response
We agree with the reviewer’s comment that the Solix model is not relevant (see response to Approach
section). We are building a framework to explore a vast range of design concepts. Establishing this
framework requires setting a baseline design case to lay the foundation for the model and data integration
infrastructure. We appreciate and absolutely acknowledge the reviewers’ opinions that the baseline design
case has performance flaws. The relevance of the baseline design scale of 1-acre may be applicable to
inoculation pond assessments, but there are clear challenges using this scale as a replicated unit
throughout a production farm. The basis for design concepts incorporated into the framework will be
existent farms, as information is available, as well conceptual designs developed from the multiple
integrated database layers within the dynamic model. Relationships are being developed to gain access to
information from those operating both commercial and test-bed algal farms. With the completion of the
modeling framework, investigation of a comprehensive set of design concepts will be facilitated,
including the ability to seamlessly incorporate technologies being built across the OBP research platform
and broader research community. The IAF meets many of the DOE roadmap goals for modeling
including the ability to combine disparate databases, optimize facility location and supply chain logistics,
Page 104 of 223