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. required transport pathways and energy requirements, will provide necessary metrics for site prioritization. 2.7 The project team agrees with the reviewer's comment. However, in recognition of the DOE OBP’s challenge of establishing a credible, accurate inventory of national feedstock resource potential and assessing environmentally sustainable feedstock potential, our goal is to develop a feedstock supply assessment framework that can be readily updated and improved as new data, models and information become available. Thus, over the long-term, the expectation is that many researchers and institutions will contribute to addressing OBP’s challenge, and the IAF will provide a framework for organizing and utilizing research results, and contributing to the needed assessments. 3. Project Relevance The project both identifies with and contributes to meeting the platform goals and objectives of the Biomass Program Multi-Year Program Plan The project has considered applications of the expected outputs Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 7 This project is extremely relevant to the OBP program on algal biofuels. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5 These models will be helpful to establishment of biofuels' farms, but need careful data input and sensitivity analysis of models. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4 Effort further provides the DOE with analysis framework to holistically evaluate U.S. microalgae production potential and associated resource requirements and feedstock logistics Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 6 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 6 The project is relevant to platform goals. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 5 Again, the relevance is predicated on a much clearer integration or collaborative relationship with the other PNNL study (and the Idaho model). Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 8 Work is hihgly relevant because an accurate assessment to define alagal biofuel potential is necessary. Presenter Response 3.1 N/C 3.2 We agree with the reviewer's comment. Please see Response 2.2. We further agree that sensitivity studies will be an important tool to understanding the various tradeoffs involved in the siting and scaling of industrial-scale feedstock supply enterprises, and the associated resource and infrastructure requirements. These sensitivity studies will be conducted under the IAF testing and demonstration efforts for this project scheduled for FY12. 3.3 N/C 3.4 N/C 3.5 N/C 3.6 We agree with the reviewer's comment. This project is by design a collaborative effort that is integrating PNNL’s BAT with INL’s ALM, and utilizes the existing capabilities at both laboratories as a point of departure. In addition, please see Response 1.6. 3.7 The overall objective of this project in collaboration with the INL project is to develop Page 112 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. an integrated analytical framework to conduct an accurate assessment of algal biofuel potential encompassing the "resource to production to biorefinery" portion of the feedstock lifecycle. 4. Critical Success Factors The project has identified critical factors, (including technical, business, market, regulatory, and legal factors) that impact the potential technical and commercial success of the project The project has presented adequate plans to recognize, address, and overcome these factors The project has the opportunity to advance the state of technology and impact the viability of commercial algal biomass feedstock supply and conversion, through one or more of the following: i. Cross-Cutting Analysis (ex. economic analysis, sustainability analysis, resource assessments, risk assessments) ii. Feedstock Supply R&D (ex. biology, cultivation, resource use, biomass characteristics, harvesting/dewatering) iii. Downstream Refining R&D (ex. extraction, conversion, fuel, products, fuel/product infrastructure and end-use) iv. Environmental sustainability (example: water use, GMOs, energy consumption) Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 6 The CSFs and Challenges are adequately explained. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5 This model effort needs additional input data. One factor not yet included that is important is the effect of sealevel rise and predicted climate change, in general. This should be incorporated as a sensitivity analysis. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4 Integration of on-site feedstock production and harvesting logistics assessments into full lifecycle analysis Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 6 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 6 Critical success factors were identified but it will be a major challenge to make the model truly useful. How to develop a model with enough depth in the different modules so that it is practical (and not just an exercise in modeling using GIS overlays)? Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 7 I saw no problems here. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 6 The scope of the model is so vast that critical success factors include focusing on key leverage items where there are gaps in current knowledge and in the selection and incorporation of best available exisitng data and models. For example, it appears that the processing component of the logistic model could be improved and moved forward by using NREL modeling. Page 113 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:
Page 61 and 62: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 111: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?