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.
Presenter Response
The objective of the project is to evaluate methods other than the traditionally-used solvent extraction to
see if they can be applied to selectively release desired components from algal biomass. The original
experimental plan was to proceed with a few targeted experiments, then down-select based on technical
results. This plan was followed for all 3 technologies being researched: 1) solvent extraction -
hydrothermal; 2) pyrolysis; 3) gasification. A considerable amount of data has been collected for all three
strategies but could not be adequately presented in the less than 10 minute timeframe that the presenter
was allowed.
A persistent criticism of the work is that it is not supported by technoeconomic analysis (TEA). We wish
to point out that the research was exploratory in nature and was designed to develop information (e.g.
process conditions, product yields, etc.) that can now be used to develop a TEA. Our primary goal was to
compare several low-severity processes based on technical merit, and eliminate from consideration
processes that were found to be technically infeasible (such as gasification due to high tar loadings); the
project is only now at a maturity level where valid economics can start to be developed. To label as 'bad
science' exploratory research that may be later found to be economically challenged is unfair. On the
other hand, to use pre-conceived notions of economics to do process downselect before any data has been
collected is simply misguided.
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: 4
Progress is perhaps behind schedule, based on the extent presented.
Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 6
The project began in March 2009, and has completed work that shows that nitrogen contamination of
some lipids is a problem requiring solution in their extraction techniques.
Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 8
Some promising results were presented for both hydrothermal and pyrolysis; gas cleaning for syngas
product may be problematic.
Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 6
See Overall Impression text.
Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 4
The project appears to be on target with its stated goals.
Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 5
Not a lot of data - appears to be one-off experiments.
Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3
Progress might have been compromised by lack of concept screening using preliminary techno economic
analysis.
Page 118 of 223