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.
Presenter Response
The PI’s appreciate the comments about providing the correct modeling hooks, and having flexible
construction. The PI’s are deeply engaged in communities developing advanced data and model
integration tools for engineering decision making, and are building the algae logistics modeling
framework with current state of the art concepts and tools. In fact, the tools and approaches being utilized
in this modeling framework have been associated with three R&D 100 awards over the past five years.
We agree that technology transfer will be a challenge for this project and the progress and
accomplishments to date have not been focused on technology transfer. This is because the most
important knowledge and conclusions that will be developed by this project are not yet known. The PI’s
are very aware of the role and need for technology transfer, and will be continuously working with project
partners and DOE to make sure the right pathways for technology transfer have been identified and are
being pursued. The research team has begun working to develop relationships to gain access to
engineering systems data from successful companies, developers, and other research institutions. Current
partnerships with entities operating large-scale ponds or farms include those with Utah State University,
Energy Dynamics Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and their NAABB partners that
operate ponds at University of Arizona and Texas A&M. This will give us access to a variety of scales
ranging from 220L- 24,000L raceways, and a floating pond configuration at 154,310 L. Algal include
strains of Chlorella, Nanochloropsis, Chaetoceros, Neochloris, and indigenous/wild fresh water strains
from Utah. We are working to expand our relationships with commercial algal farms as well and
appreciate the suggestion offered by one reviewer that Cyanotech Corporation would be willing to
provide information.
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
This modeling work seems to promise a useful product when completed. One hopes all available
commercial data is utilized in the model, and that some plan for testing the full scale model is part of the
end deliverable.
Reviewer: 2
The project may need to use additional data and scales.
Reviewer: 3
Are there overlaps between Biomass Assessment (PNNL) and Algae Logistics Model (INL)? Does the
analysis depend on the species cultivated and the product derived? E.g., the species used would determine
Algae harvesting processes. PI needs to bring this important aspect into the modeling. The alga biotech
sector has already accomplished and currently use these criteria on a routine basis: -Raceway
infrastructure -Pond configurations -Product storage and transportation are issues that have been solved.
How is this theoretical analysis going to be better than what already has been accomplished by the private
sector? Reviewer recommends that the PI should go to the Big Island of Hawaii (Kona) and visit
Cyanotech Corporation. They would be happy to help you get a head start. Overall, this appears to be
redundant work. It is reinventing the wheel.
Reviewer: 4
Overall Impressions: 3
Page 107 of 223