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. presentation, and that from INL (Newby). It seems to duplicate that work, and its difficult to see the interconnection. That said, its an important resource model and these efforts are important. However, a much more defined relationship to the other PNNL model would be recommended. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 7 The project management plan would benefit from some in-progress validation process, perhaps including virtual and real visits to sites deemed suitable for alagla biofuel production. Definition of goals for model accuracies might have value. Presenter Response 1.1 N/C 1.2 The canonical Redfield ratio is a valuable starting point for incorporating nutrient use into our general model. As with any model, keeping the underlying assumptions in mind is necessary for interpreting the model. It will be beneficial to ensure the model is built with flexibility in regarding later adjustments in the C:N:P ratio. After completing the general model, adjusting the C:N:P ratio to reflect, in turn, a diatom and a green alga may be good next steps. The caveat to these iterations of the model would be that different strains are likely to be employed in different climates and latitudes, so we will utilize different strain-specific ratios as appropriate and as data become available. Furtrher, future algal biological and cultivation research may provide data and understanding leading to a more mechanistic, improved approach to modeling nutrient use. We are collaborating with the NAABB Algal biology and Algal Cultivation Teams as they generate new information on algal productivity as a function of nutrient sources and use and climatic conditions. 1.3 N/C; 1.4 N/C; 1.5 N/C; 1.6 Related projects are WBS .9.6.1.2, “Microalgae Analysis,” and WBS 9.1.3.1, “Algae-Based Biofuels Integrated Assessment Framework: Development, Evaluation, and Demonstration,”. WBS 9.6.1.2 is responsible for much of the original Biomass Assessment Tool (BAT) development, as well as ongoing selected enhancements including analysis of freshwater availability, saline water sources, web-based interface development and linkage to the KDF. WBS 9.1.3.1 is, by design, a collaborative project with WBS 9.6.1.6 such that the BAT’s GIS-based, high-resolution resource assessment capabilities are coupled with INL’s Algae Logistics Module (ALM) to create the Integrated Assessment Framework (IAF). In short, INL’s efforts are focused on development and delivery of the ALM, including providing pioneer supply system design for feedstock logistics encompassing algal harvesting, storage and transport, and cost and engineering performance assessment. The IAF will provide a resource assessment capability that addresses the complete feedstock supply chain. The 3 tasks within WBS 9.6.1.6 are distinct in scope from the 2 projects above. Task 1, being executed by PNNL building on the existing BAT, is focused on addition of critical data base and analytical elements to the BAT. Task 2, being executed jointly with INL, is to develop the IAF, coupling the high spatial and temporal modeling capabilities of BAT with ALM. The result will be an analysis framework encompassing the complete microalgae feedstock supply chain. Task 3, working with INL, is using the IAF to conduct selected national, regional, and site-specific analyses of microalgae production potential and tradeoffs. 1.7 Validation is an important issue for resource use and algal biofuel production assessments. For this project and the overall BAT development, we have approached this at several levels: 1) Early on we worked with J. Benemann and D. Anderson to create the conceptual design, data requirements, and underlying assumptions for the algal growth model 2) Based on limited published values and anecdotal information provided by J. Benemann, we have benchmarked our analytical results. For example, our results indicate an average conversion efficiency of total solar energy to organic mass of approximately 1%. This is consistent with the published value of 1%-3% for observed yields from Williams and Laurens (2010). 3) During 2011 the team will visit research sites where algal growth experiments are underway: a) PNNL lab experiments representing different U.S. regional climates for fresh and saline water strains; b) U. of Arizona focused on design and operation of raceway's in arid Page 110 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. climates using freshwater algae; c) Texas A&M to evaluate large-scale ponds and production strains; and d) Utah State University focused on cold weather cultivation and nutrient addition strategies. 2. Technical Progress and Accomplishments Please evaluate the degree to which the project has made progress in its objectives and stated project management plan has met its objectives in achieving milestones and overcoming technical barriers Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 6 Progress is acceptable for the length of time thus far. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 4 The models need to incorporate the newer data being produced (try to get input factors from several of the larger DoE projects) and use information from the published literature, including on Redfield ratios. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 5 Progress has been achieved on growth model and data bases development, land value model, and IAF framework design. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 6 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 6 Progress is limited because the project just started. They have accessed EPA databases for powerplants and wastewater treatment facilities; have started looking at NPDES permit sites and ag-based nutrient datasets. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 7 Good progress and work well done. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 7 Initial progress is good, but the scope of the model is quite daunting. Presenter Response 2.1 N/C 2.2 We designed the BAT and the algal growth model such that we can readily incorporate more accurate information or improved models for specific algae strains, environmental conditions, and downstream lifecycle processes as they become available. For example, we are closely monitoring ongoing and planned technology development efforts by the NAABB Algal Biology and Cultivation Teams where there is a focus on increasing overall productivity of biomass accumulation and lipid/hydrocarbon content. The Cultivation Team is focused on increasing overall productivity by developing optimizing scalable cultivation practices and growth rates under various environments. We also are interacting with PIs at PNNL, Utah State University, U of Arizona, and Texas A&M to evaluate their results and as appropriate incorporate them into the BAT. Finally, we are continually reviewing the algae and bioenergy literature to identify potential upgrades to BAT as appropriate. 2.3 N/C 2.4 N/C 2.5 The nationally available data from EPA and others are being incorporated into the IAF to better define 1) additional components in the lifecycle process, and 2) potential co-location/co-benefit opportunities to use other lifecycle waste products in the algae process stream. Spatial modeling of these entities, along with Page 111 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:
Page 59 and 60: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 109: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?