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. development described is unlikely to fit the scale of pond/raceways required for economical biofuels' development. Secondly, the PI is approaching the filtration problem as if unialgal and axenic cultures would be filtered; this is unlikely to be true, so "messier" cultures should be used in the work than pure Chaetoceros, Cyclotella, Chlorella etc. The PI and team have several scales of raceways built into project, which is good, and have previous experiences with filtration problems (nuclear waste to beet processing). The algal biofuels' projects have their own distinctive filtration problems, and the PIs need to give attention to background knowledge acquisition. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 6 The work aims to use high face velocity filtration to effect harvesting of microalgae from a culture and water recycling/conservation Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 4 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 4 The project goal is to characterize and improve on dewatering processes. The specific approach is to develop and test different filtration (membrane) technologies. The approach is sound but appears limited to one technology. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 4 This is a technical assessment of a particular type of harvesting dewatering unit operation. In that context the approach is fine EXCEPT for lack of energy balances. The PI should present the power consumed per unit volume of water consumed from the manufacturer. The PI could have then estimated a typical starting concentration of algae in water harvested (about 0.3 gdw l-1) and a typical bio-oil content (about 20%). From those numbers the PI could point out, right from the start, if this device has a chance to meet the target energy load of no more than 10% of the energy (per unit volume processed) as per the Algal Biofuels Roadmap. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4 A clear definition of project scope and goals in terms of input stream characteristics, output stream characteristics, energy consumption, yield, scale, and capital cost target is needed. The goal of cost reduction compared to centrifugation is not sufficient. Dewatering economics must enable commercial scale algal biofuel production. Presenter Response We agree with the reviewer’s comment that the ultimate goal of this technology is to provide a costeffective method for dewatering. The selection of the cross-flow technology for application to the dewatering issue was based on past work in this area where success was achieved from starting materials of similar characteristics to the algae cultures. The presenters also wish to point out that engineering solutions, such as development and application of embedded membranes, can significantly improve the efficiency and feasibility of using cross-flow membrane technology. This project was funded to look at the possibility making these advancements, and we agree an energy calculation is valuable and ultimately necessary while noting that the laboratory scale units being used for the development efforts do not necessary represent the potential for the technology at scale.. Please see the overall impressions section for an energy calculation. As the reviewer points out, the initial parametric testing is being done using unialgal and axenic cultures. The basis for this approach is to understand how the different types of algae interact with the membrane, so that appropriate membranes may be selected and/or developed for further analyses. The initial cultures include 3 green algae, and 2 diatoms, allowing us to assess the membranes Page 136 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. with different biochemical and physical properties, including, size, shape, EPS, silica framework, etc. All strains selected are known for their lipid production potential. We fully agree the technology needs to be assessed using “messier” cultures since that is the reality of what will be harvested from paddle-wheel grown outdoor pond algae. We included the variety of scales of raceways in our proposal for this very reason. As we develop our membrane dewatering technology our intention has always been to apply it to more complex populations. We are currently working with several entities operating large-scale ponds or farms include those with Utah State University, Energy Dynamics Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and their NAABB partners that operate ponds at University of Arizona and Texas A&M. This will give us access to a variety of scales ranging from 220L- 24,000L raceways, and a floating pond configuration at 154,310 L. Algal include strains of Chlorella, Nanochloropsis, Chaetoceros, Neochloris, and indigenous/wild fresh water lipid producing strains from Utah. Biomass from the variety of ponds grown at Utah State University and the Energy Dynamics Lab, will serve as our feedstocks for testing at larger-scale on “messier” cultures. Our hope is that the technology will prove useful and we will be able to apply it for dewatering at other production facilities as well. 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: 5 It appears a reasonable amount of progress has been made for the project duration. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5 This project began very recently. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 6 Scale and diversity of algal cultures was expanded GC-FID and Nile Red lipid analysis methods were applied to expanded algae library Procurement of STC - delivered and initial testing Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 4 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 4 Progress is limited since it just began in October 2010. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 5 Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 6 Identification of novel technology and intitiation of testing is good progress. Progress on developing specific commercial goals and clearly defined harvesting or dewatering concepts is lagging. Presenter Response We agree with the reviewer’s comments regarding progress on this new start project. The development of specific commercial goals will be addressed as we develop and refine the technology. Page 137 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:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 135: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?