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. Goals listed in presentation are numerous and presented is somewhat disjointed fashion: Technology gap analysis, cost analysis (aka techno-economic analysis), resources analysis, infrastructure compatibility, algae logistics module (similar to woody biomass analysis), and baseline facility designs, Harvesting and dewatering technologies selected thus far are mostly conventional and obviously too expensive and/or energy intensive for algae biofuel. Pond sizes being assessed are 1 acres and 10 acre. 1 acre is obviously too small to be economical. I don't see how this technology analysis and model designs are different from the many others in the recent literature and in Aquatic Species Program reports. Isn't this also somewhat a duplication of the technology assessment being done by NAABB/NREL? Reviewer: 5 The apparent overlap with an NREL project was disconcerting (at the very least, they should collaborate). The challenge in gaining access to proprietary engineering information seems very problematic and there was no clear path to overcoming this obstacle. Reviewer: 6 Overall this project needs more realism in terms of the systems it models. Reviewer: 7 The challenge of acquiring scenarios supported by pilot data appears to be the greatest hurdle. The integrated assesment framework appears to be a valuable, or perhaps essential tool for production scenario evaluation and selection, but it is only useful if validated process data is available. building the tool around available data instead of relevant data does not appear to help advance the technology. Presenter Response Many of the overall impression comments have been addressed (see respective sections above). When completed the IAF will provide DOE with the first spatially-explicit estimate of open pond microalgae production potential and resource demands for the conterminous United States. It will meet many of the DOE roadmap goals for modeling including the ability to combine disparate databases, optimize facility location and supply chain logistics, include a number of approaches, scales, and levels of detail required for a particular assessment, and to be easily modified to incorporate new technologies as they become available. Data from pilot scale and commercial algal production farms will be incorporated based on availability of data through literature, partnerships, and collaborations as described previously. As suggested by the reviewer, a full testing and verification plan will be delivered as part of the conclusion to the initial two year project. These activities will be performed to the degree that resources allow through the development process, and a comprehensive testing matrix will be established for potential continued work. We have read and continue to refer to the foundational literature indicated by the reviewers. These papers reflect the state of technology applications at the time the reports were generated. Our model is designed to encompass those technologies (and clearly it should be consistent with them) but also to expand beyond those technologies; and combine spatial resource information with production and supply chain logistics. INL and NREL have begun collaborating in this area and look to leverage unique aspects of each modeling approach. The modeling framework being developed at the INL in support of the IAF is providing a plug-and-play architecture for investigating a broad range of technologies and design concepts for algae supply systems. This approach is a natural extension of several initial techno-economic assessments that have been performed to date. Furthermore, the logistics modeling framework being Page 108 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. developed in this work provides an opportunity for exploring engineering research questions using model and data tools at multiple fidelities as may be required by the specific question at hand. Project: 9.6.1.6 PNNL Title: Collaborative: Algae-based Integrated Assessment Framework Presenter: Richard Skaggs Presentation Date: Friday, April 08, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 5.57 1.18 7 Progress 5.86 0.99 7 Relevance 5.86 1.25 7 Critical Success Factors 5.71 0.88 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: 7 The Approach in this project is well reasoned. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 4 This is a modelling project that incorporates features such as the cost of land. Productivity is based upon the canonical Redfield ratio, but it is now well known that different algal taxonomic groups (e.g. green algae vs diatoms) have different Redfield ratios. It would be good to try to do a general model, and then test it against a specific case, and adjust Redfield ratios appropriately for a species that is an actual biofuels' target (e.g., Nitzschia as a diatom; Chlorella as a green alga). Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4 Effort provides integration and systematic biophysical evaluation of resource demands and constraints on microalgae biofuel production with harvesting logistics and cost analysis coupled with sound project management. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 6 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 6 The approach is to build CO2 and nutrient source data bases for inclusion into a DOE analysis framework. The approach is sound and feasible. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 5 The approach appears reasonable but its very difficult to differentiate if from the previous PNNL Page 109 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:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 107: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?