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. provide promising results. Could you elaborate on the conditions employed in pyrolysis? (How do you disperse the biomass? Is it wet or dry? Under ambient or other pressure?) Reviewer: 4 Overall Impression: 6 Of course, economics and environmental considerations are the mostly likely "show-stoppers" and much should be known about these considerations based on past research and experience. In this project, early efforts should be made to evaluate the prospects for safe economical processes and then track the development progress against the needed results. Are the needed levels of improvement conceivable? Novel extraction methods are mentioned several times but no details are given. Reviewer: 5 The project is technically sound but it was very unclear why the investigators expected to end up with a commercially viable technology. Reviewer: 6 I note a lack of energy balances in the future work. Reviewer: 7 The project appears to have moved to laboratory work before a rigorous screening of concepts was completed. The risk of laboratory success delivering dead on arrival technology because of techno economic considerations appears to be very high. Presenter Response In response to Reviewer 3, we have considerable micro-scale data on dried material. We will perform some gram-scale tests in order to obtain enough liquid product to do a more thorough analysis. Benchscale fluid-bed pyrolysis with pneumatic feeding will be performed if resources allow. Reviewer 6 appears to be concerned about the energy balance of microwave extraction. We are performing a series of tests to compare the energy-efficiency of various liquid extraction procedures including microwave extraction. Project: 9.6.5.1 Sandia National Labs Title: Pond to Wheels Algae Biodiesel Life Cycle Assessment Presenter: Howard Passell Presentation Date: Friday, April 08, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 4.71 1.16 7 Progress 4.57 1.29 7 Relevance 4.86 1.73 7 Critical Success Factors 4.86 1.25 7 Page 122 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. 1. Project Approach The project performers have implemented technically sound research, development, and deployment approaches and demonstrated necessary results to meet their targets The project performers have identified a project management plan that includes well-defined milestones and adequate methods for addressing potential risks. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 5 The approach is described. One might argue with some of the choices, but there is at least reasonable disclosure. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5 The goal of the project is life cycle assessment for Dunaliella production, with evaluation also of Nannochloris and Nannochloropsis. Some model parameters come from GREET with cultivation and harvesting from Seambiotic. The consumption of electricity for algal cultivation and harvesting is demonstrated by the model to be highest impact cost and by their assumptions a 100,000 m2 facility is optimal. The model needs to include other factors (e.g., construction costs, provision of power plant). Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 6 •Pond-to-wheels life cycle assessment of CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions for light and heavy duty vehicles across cultivation, harvesting, extraction, separation, conversion and combustion. •Provide a model that can be shared with other institutions. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 3 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 5 Goals included development of an LCA and a pond flow optimization model using information from a commercial process. The approach is sound. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 6 A solid approach that looks at appropriate process indicators (including energy). It is clear the approach was solid as their analysis led to the conclusion that improvements should be reached in extraction/dewatering/harvesting. Most LCA are too complicated to relevant to the majority but this presentation seemed to be just contained enough that the majority could follow it. I think this approach, particularly applied to open ponds has great merit. I also appreciated the fact the LCA was set out outdoor ponds which is the likely path forward. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3 It appears that the LCA was performed without first completing a thorough review and analysis of published LCA's and without selection of relevant scenarios. The presentation did not put the pond flow optimization work in context of previous art. Presenter Response 2. Technical Progress and Accomplishments Please evaluate the degree to which the project has Page 123 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:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 121: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?