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 We recognize that work on pond scaling and production systems has been somewhat extensive. However, attempts to achieve consistently high productivities were often hampered by low temperature conditions encountered (Roswell, NM). Thus, it was concluded that some form of temperature control may well be required (page ii, Technical Review; Sheehan et al. 1998). Prior works and analysis has shown that the Great Basin (Nevada being the major area within the greater Great Basin) could be a favorable location for systems that rely on solar radiation (http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html). Therefore research on developing pond systems (with local algae that can actually grow in the water) in the region makes just as much sense as other locations that have been proposed. However, in addition, gaining temperature control of production systems in these locations and extending the growth seasons also has been recognized as a key component to allowing the viability of the pond-based production facilities (Sheehan et al. 1998 and references therein). The Great Basin has a multitude of geothermal features and resources with potential to be used to provide energy in the form of geothermal power generation. At the back end of the plants used to generate electricity, geothermal water is “wasted” at temperatures that are not conducive for electricity generation but still are well above 70 deg C (with the volume of flow and rates depending on the generation plants). However, even small-scale turbines can produce 500-900 gallons of water per minute at temperatures exceeding 70 deg C (some lines produce at temperatures at or near 100 deg C). Even at these low rates of flow- temperature control of pond systems at 30-50 deg C can be achieved either by direct addition or by a combination of direct addition or thermal insulation systems (the "waste" energy nominally represents over tens of megawatts of heating potential). In addition, there is even more untapped dry-based geothermal reserves that may be watered for energy production in the future. Most all geothermal systems have the water being re-injected after use and all notional designs for these systems would have the waters being returned. The reviews were critical of the fact that this program was not directing the resources for the design specifications of plants for the geothermal control. The private sector and other design engineers are doing some of this work and will undoubtedly do this work in earnest once it is shown that the hard work of achieving reliable biomass production at higher temperatures is completed and the other critical issues are dealt with (such as stability and nutrient supply etc...). It seems the scale of energy supply from heating should be better communicated in the future and we regret that some on the review team had not the grasp of the amount of potential energy that exists in these systems and this was not articulated well at the meeting. Efforts will take into account the well founded comments regarding C02 assessments and efforts to focus on only a few of promising strains and consortia rather than expending all the resources searching for the "ideal" strains. 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: 2 Activities are underway, but they seem disjointed and not well-rooted in an end objective. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 3 This project is about 15% complete and more focus on practical targets might be helpful. The work seems too much like an ecological characterization of geothermal waters vs a focussed study of whether feedstock algae are to be found there. Page 178 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: 3 Criteria Score: 7 The project is progressing as indicated in the project management plan. Field sampling and laboratory experimentation will continue. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 7 Water chemistry at some sites has been characterized. Some algae samples, presumably from geothermal sites, have been characterized in lab for growth and lipid content. Amendments to geothermal waters have been developed for algae media. A needed safety plan is in place --good. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 3 Progress is limited because the project started in September 2010. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 1 Only a few microalgae reactor cultures and developed the Nile Red assay. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3 Technical progress is hindered by lack of conceptual temperature control ssytems supported by engineeering calculations on heat and water balance in potential algae production systems. Presenter Response We agree that temperature control can be developed more as the program progresses and the scale of water production and processing becomes known at sites. However, the general approach is such that the private sector or other RnD activities will take this and other aspects on once it can be shown that biomass can be reliably produced at desirable rates. It should also be noted that some or much of the nutrients can be gained from the geothermal waters themselves (several sources have phosphate concentrations in excess of 10 uM and nitrate and ammonium concentrations on the order of 500 to 3,000 uM) and this key aspect of development relies on gaining better and up to date water chemistry information. Moreover, much of the prior works in the field targeted developing strains in only a few types of reproducible defined media. The RnD undertaken here is site-directed work and aims to work on only a few of the waters and make growth media specific for the sites. The geochemical interactions of the water with nutrient additions is showing that seemingly simple nutrient additions or water modifications are not without issues that should be addressed. Work on bioreactors or open cultures in the lab and in greenhouses provide a means to gain results without having to expend large amount of the resources in testing strains and consortia in the field (which is much much more expensive). The scaling approach is one that has its challenges. Yet, the approach of developing consortia and or strains in the site-specific water is more likely to succeed when compared to prior works that tried to gain isolates on defined media not tailored to sites or the approach that was suggested of just building a pond and seeing what grows. 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 Page 179 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:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 177: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 223: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?