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 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
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 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: 5 If the project were focused to deliver conclusive information on the pluses and minuses to using microwaves as source of power or directed energy input, this would be highly relevant. The longer it takes to come to conclusions, the less relevant he overall project is. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 7 Efficient extraction of lipids from good feedstock is very important. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 8 A mixture of long and short-chain hydrocarbons that would be extracted by pyrolysis might fit the need for renewable biofuels from algal biomass. This effort supports DOE objectives for HC transportation fuels from biomass Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 6 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 4 The project is relevant to platform goals. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 4 There was an apparent lack of hypothesis driven work that justified the choices made. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3 There appears to be a high level of uncertainty if some the process options are viable even if the bench scale chemistry is successful. Presenter Response 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) Page 119 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:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 117: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?