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. Presenter Response 4.1 N/C 4.2 See Responses 2.2 and 3.2 regarding quality of input data. As to potential impacts of climate change in general and sea level rise in particular, these are not part of the current work scope of this project, however, ongoing work at PNNL (WBS 6.2.1.2 Global Change Assessment Model and WBS 11.1.1.6 Biomass Production Under Climate Change) is evaluating the potential impacts of climate change on water availability on overall biomass production, and specifically water availability. Regarding sea level rise, for future efforts it would be relatively straightforward using the GIS capabilities of BAT, it would be relatively straightforward to consider the impacts of sea level rise in the coastal regions of the national assessment, thereby providing an evaluation of the sensitivity of microalgae production potential under alternative climate change scenarios. 4.3 N/C 4.4 N/C 4.5 The models and analysis capabilities housed under the BAT are designed for flexibility and usability in terms of adding additional/updated data sets and linking additional models, such as is being done under the current project. This is accomplished in the BAT design for two fundamental modes of operation. First, the 'workstation' version of the BAT enables full access to the data, models, configuration, and parameter files allowing a researcher to adjust and tune the various models and data at will. Second, the web-based BAT is intended to provide a userfriendly interface to interact with, analyze, and configure and execute the included biophysical and spatial models. Our intent with the web-based BAT is to get beyond the complexities of the 'workstation' BAT and allow a tool that is easily used and readily available for private industry and others. The project team consists of several Geographic Information Science professionals bringing to bear state-of-the-science spatial models and analysis. Several ongoing projects are supporting the BAT development process to achieve the goal of having a single analysis portal that is benefited by the work of the many ongoing collaborations. 4.6 N/C 4.7 N/C 5. Technology Transfer and Collaborations Please comment on the degree to which the project adequately interfaces and coordinates with other institutions and projects to provide additional benefits to the Biomass Program, such as publications, awards, or others. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 There is good coordination for the project and within the project. Reviewer: 2 This project has potential for good technical transfer. Reviewer: 3 Web-based Integration Assessment Framework into BioenergyKnowledge Discovery Framework and collaboration with INLand NAABB Reviewer: 4 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Technology transfer partners have been identified but it is too early to evaluate progress. Reviewer: 6 Same comment on interaction with other PNNL study. That is needed to improve tech transfer value. Page 114 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. Reviewer: 7 Strategic partnersip with industry and NAABB should be developed to the fullest extent possible. Premature publication of estimates should be avoided. Any estimates that are eventually reported should include error estimates and uncertainties. Presenter Response 5.1 N/C 5.2 We agree with the reviewers’ comment. An explicit element of our approach is to make the IAF both accessible and generally useable through a web-based user interface and by direct linkage to the KDF. Also see Response 4.5. 5.3 N/C 5.4 N/C 5.5 See Response 5.7 below. 5.6 N/C 5.7 The project team agrees with the reviewers’ comments. Team members are directly involved with the NAABB and associated industrial partners. We are diligently identifying areas for synergy, collaboration, and data/information/model exchange. 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 project has value for the Program as a whole. Reviewer: 2 This modelling approach needs to be more realistic to be useful, but has the potential to be an excellent effort. Reviewer: 3 Are there overlaps between the two Biomass Assessment efforts at PNNL? and also with the Algae Logistics Model effort at INL? Such analyses (including the previous two presentations) are premature given the uncertainties that surround strains, products, processes, all of which do not enter into the "Assessment". It is better to invest the funds in the biology of "Algae Biomass", where our collective knowledge and expertise are severely lacking. The concern here is that by the time a microalgae process can be scaled up, "models and associated spatial and temporal information for improved understanding of geographic location, relative cost, and sustainability of potential microalgae biofuel production" may be obsolete. Reviewer: 4 Overall Impressions: 6 This project is another adder to the GIS-ALM project. This project adds the crucial CO2 and nutrient resource data, with the CO2 being the most limiting resource that probably should have been the starting point of the three projects. Why are these three separate projects, each with their own budget? Skaggs: 2 years $700k Newby: 2 years $700k Wigmosta: 1 years, $365k The Redfield Ratio does not apply to algae cultivation, only to observations of marine algae. How does this project (and the Wigmosta project) build on the Sandia resource assessment? For this and the Newby project, what references are going to be the basis for your facility designs and resource uses? The PIs Page 115 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:
Page 63 and 64: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 113: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?