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. end-use) iv. Environmental sustainability (example: water use, GMOs, energy consumption) Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 5 There is a reasonable initial description of these. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 6 Undefined animal waste is used as to innoculate the digester; will this pose replication problems? Will this process scale-up---and how will this be evaluated? It may be helpful to increase the AD efficiency with more initial proteases and cellulases. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 7 Need to demonstrate sufficient biogas yields from recalcitrant algal feedstocks, moderate capital costs, and efficient nutrient recycle Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 6 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 4 Critical success factors were identified but no novel approaches were suggested that were likely to overcome these challenges. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 3 None stated to any real relevance. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 7 There appears to be very significant economic hurdles of capital requirements and of the low value of biogas and nutrients compared to the co-product value that will probably be needed to make algal fuels viable. Presenter Response The addition of proteases and cellulases to the digesters is an interesting concept, and we propose to address that through enzymatic pretreatment of the algal biomass before digestion. The longevity of enzymes added to the digester would likely be an issue, so we have opted for pretreatment in a more controlled environment. As stated in the presentation, our goal in this project is not the testing of novel, high-risk approaches, but rather the testing of assumptions for a supposedly “known” process. Having said that, we will of course be open to any novel concepts that might improve the yield of the anaerobic digestion process or the efficacy of nutrient recycle. It may be true that higher value co-products will be needed. This project and the associated technoeconomics will help establish whether or not that is the case. Note that some co-product scenarios (e.g., animal feed) might completely displace the anaerobic digestion component of the process, but others (e.g., specialty fatty acids, industrial proteins, etc.) will still leave a significant residue stream suitable for anaerobic digestion. Page 146 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. 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 This cannot be assessed at this time. Reviewer: 2 There is strong potential for good tech transfer from this project. Reviewer: 3 Future work will generate vital data on AD of spent microalgae to gain value from both biopower production and recycling of nutrients. Data will be freely shared to benefit the entire algal biofuels community Reviewer: 4 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Technology transfer potential seems unlikely. Reviewer: 6 Too early a project to comment. Reviewer: 7 NREL work is widely shared. Presenter Response As noted, NREL work is widely shared and technology transfer will take place through publications and interactions with interested parties. 6. Overall Impressions Please provide an overall evaluation of the project, including strengths, weaknesses, the project approach, scope, and any other overall comments. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Overall, I believe with some modifications, there could be useful outcomes from this project. Reviewer: 2 Increasing the anaerobic digester's replicability with defined inputs and potentially adding additional sources of enzymes to break biomass should be considered. Recovery of energy from residual biomass after lipid extraction by anaerobic digestion is useful research. The diverse feedstock targets is a good aspect of the project. Page 147 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:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 145: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?