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. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 7 Appropriate success factors selected. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4 A critical success factor is both pond modelling and LCA is to define the current state of the art and ensure that new research advances the technology towards algla biofuel production at scale. Presenter Response 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 I believe this result should be a point of discussion with other projects and should also make it into the literature. Reviewer: 2 Presentations etc. appearing. Model may be useful to other projects if costing factors can be better incorporated. Reviewer: 3 Plan is acceptable. Reviewer: 4 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 The potential for technology transfer is good. Reviewer: 6 Quite good. Reviewer: 7 It is not clear if pond modeling is an advance, and it is not evident how widely the model will be shared. Presenter Response 6. Overall Impressions Please provide an overall evaluation of the project, including strengths, weaknesses, the project approach, scope, and any other overall comments. Page 126 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 Comments Reviewer: 1 The project is useful. It could have perhaps been improved by a review of some of the assumptions and boundaries selected. Nonetheless, it is a valuable contribution. Reviewer: 2 This model shows the challenges still ahead for economic production of algal biofuels. Project should try to incorporate full costs and do better sensitivity analysis on size of pond and productivity of algae. Reviewer: 3 Much of this analysis is available in the photobioreactors literature. Reviewer: 4 LCA Overall Impression: 2 Hydrodynamic Model Overall Impression: 6 How is this LCA project being coordinated with the Argonne LCA? This project seems to focus on the existing Seabiotic plant, which is 1000x smaller than any feasible biofuel plant. In addition, 1000-m2 individual ponds are modeled, which are about 40x smaller than the size generally considered feasible for biofuel feedstock production. The "Future Projection" system is better, but still too small. Use of centrifugation for biofuel production is inappropriate on its face. The base-case should be abandoned as irrelevant, and the Future Projection should be greatly adjusted. Collaboration with the Argonne LCA project may be advisable, not to say that they are using appropriate assumptions either. Any feasible algae biofuel process will use only the most simple, low-energy, and largest-scale processes conceivable, as outlined in the Aquatic Species Program reports. The hydrodynamic-biological model may be valuable for design details on very large raceway ponds. It will be good to validate with the small-scale Seambiotic data or other >1000 m2 ponds. Reviewer: 5 This seemed to be a reasonable (but predictable) project. It was not clear that this project represents a significant advance compared to existing LCAs. Reviewer: 6 Quite favorable for the reasons identified above. Reviewer: 7 Previous LCA work appears to be more thoroguh and relevant. It is not clear what advances in pond flow modeling have been made compared to previous work, and how those modeling advances can improve pond design. Project: 9.1.2.1 Brookhaven National Laboratory Title: New technology: Improving Microalgal Oil Production Based on Quantitative Analysis of Metabolism Presenter: Jorg Schwender Presentation Date: Friday, April 08, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Page 127 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:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 125: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?