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.
should consult extensively with experts and not rely on the highly variable quality of published literature.
As with the Newby project, I suggest some ground-truth designs be prepared early in the project.
Reviewer: 5
Good project but its practicality is likely to be limited by the depth of its individual modules.
Reviewer: 6
See above.
Reviewer: 7
The assesssment is valuable but challenging. Modelling must have flexibility to incorporate rapidly
changing technology. Key leverage items should be indentified early in the modelling effort so resources
can be focused. Model validation strategy needs to be developed. premature dsitriburtion and use of
modelling or resutls is a significant risk.
Presenter Response
6.1 N/C 6.2 See Response 1.7. 6.3 As described in Response 1.6, there are three principle tasks within
WBS 9.6.1.6 that are distinct in scope from the other projects. Task 1, is adding critical data base and
analytical elements to the BAT, namely: ▪ CO2 and nutrient source data bases ▪ Enhanced algal growth
model to estimate nutrient and CO2 requirements, and ▪ Land value and availability model and data base
Task 2, coupling the BAT with ALM consists of two primary elements: 1) develop the IAF design
specifications and enabling architecture requirements, and 2) integrate the software and data base
components of the BAT and ALM, develop necessary new components (e.g., proximity/cost model,
feedstock supply tradeoff model, etc.), and web-based IAF user interface. Task 3, joint (w/INL)
application and demonstration of the IAF will evaluate at regional/national scales: optimal
feedstock/harvest enterprise locations and scales infrastructure requirements and identification
regional/national production performance and feasibility 6.4a WBS 9.6.1.2, “Microalgae Analysis is an
ongoing effort, including the initial development of the BAT that originated in FY 2008. This project and
WBS 9.1.3.1 are new projects initiated in September FY10 with distinct scopes of work to build on and
extend the BAT capabilities as described in Response 1.6 and 6.3. Thus, DOE OBP has funded them as
separate projects. 6.4b See Response 1.2. 6.4c The teams for this project and WBS 9.6.1.2 have consulted
with with Ron Pate from the early stages in the development of the BAT to ensure this project builds on,
without replicating the work of Ron Pate and others at Sandia National Laboratory. As part of his March
17, 2011 presentation to the NRC Study on Algae Biofuels Sustainability, Ron provided a comprehensive
side-by-side comparison of the Sandia and PNNL algae biofuels resource analyses. For example, he
characterized the PNNL assessment as “high resolution/granularity at National level w/ 30-m resolution”
based on “approximate physics-based growth modeling based on conditions” and the SNL assessment as
low resolution/granularity at State level, multi-state regions” and “no detailed physics-based modeling.”
6.4d As discussed in Response 1.7, we are making every effort to ground our work based on first hand,
real work experience in microalgae production with a particular emphasis on current and planned
laboratory and pilot scale efforts. 6.5 We agree with the reviewers’ comments. Therefore, we have
designed the BAT in general 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. It is also our expectation that by designing the IAF to enable broad accessibility, over
the long-term many researchers and institutions will contribute to the depth and breadth of the individual
IAF modules. 6.6a See Responses 1.6 and 6.3. 6.6b See Response 6.4c. 6.7 See Response 1.7.
Page 116 of 223