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. success factors and we may revisit directing resources in this direction. For information on the labs research programs, see http://www.dri.edu/chris-fritsen. In addition, Dr. Fritsen has worked in the ASP years ago in Dr. Cooksey's laboratory, has extensive culturing experience and knowledge of nutrient and photophysiological attributes of algae. He has experience in systems designs and program management through work on NASA programs as well as the polar research vessel committee service. Additionally, co-investigator's have requisite experience in analytical capacities to support the efforts (e.g. lipid analysis, water chemistry, microscopy, etc...). Additional team members from UNR and AGEnergy have expertise in private-sector partnerships and algal culturing as well. 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 The weaknesses have been enumerated already. The presentation did not show thoughtful objectives and scope. Nor did it show a relationship with all the other work in the algae bioproducts and even extremophile areas. Why would one consider scale up without any technoeconomic reason to do so? The questions about this project are multitudinous. The DOE officer should be demanding a well-reasoned scientific program. Reviewer: 2 This project appears to be a basic study of geothermal algae in Nevada; it may reveal something interesting about these algae, but it is important for the PI to focus on development and application of information to commercial biofuels' production needs refocus. Reviewer: 3 This is a somewhat unique and worthwile effort seeking to apply basic research regarding the development of algal growth and production systems in conjunction with geothermal resources throughout Nevada. Reviewer: 4 See other comments. Reviewer: 5 This project appears to be more focused on capacity building within Nevada than on addressing Biomass Program goals. Reviewer: 6 Much of this work is being done by the consortiums and the focus should be on geothermal issues of production. Reviewer: 7 Additional concept development for high temperaure production systems is needed. With several day growth cycles and thousands of acres of growth system area, temperature control appears to be problematic. Page 184 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. Presenter Response In brief, we fully intend to continue to work within the national program’s framework as outlined by the 2010 report, in collaboration with colleagues in large consortia and to remain synergistic with the large consortia’s and the private sector’s efforts. That said, however, we also recognize the value of the model that DOE has worked under in the past whereby independent research approaches and lines with similar desirable outcomes has the potential for independent discovery and technological breakthroughs. The work is indeed unique and being conducted in a lab and area where the resources to do so are available. The other misplaced reviewer's comments are indeed misplaced. The work is not just relevant to Nevada (see section on relevance) and the scaling for technoeconomoic analysis can and should be done. However, if it cannot be demonstrated that biomass production can nominally occur in these waters then such technoeconomic analysis will simply lack a basis for speculation or analysis. The scope of the research is seemingly wide and ALL of the potential factors that may inhibit the development of algae in these areas is understandably not addressed (e.g. harvesting, drying, transport etc...). Yet, the RnD does only target work in regards to geothermal water, consortia and strains for development. The work does not encompass the scope the NAABB encompasses. Yet understandably, the field does have standard procedures and approaches that are utilized throughout the discipline field. It should not be surprising that there are similar activities and approaches among and between labs. We will work to better provide a clearer assessment of the the overall scale for thermal-algae systems in the Great Basin. However, with over 21 operational power production facilities in Nevada alone and more in development (e.g. http://www.nvenergy.com/renewablesenvironment/renewables/geothermal.cfm), the potential marriage of the uses of the waste heat and growing algae therein is real. Additionally, waste heat from other power plants and the specific waters that accompany these plants likely should be investigated, yet lie beyond the scope of the present study. The peer review does appear to have some issues, given that during the preparation of the presentation materials we were given instructions to provide materials for "high-level" program synthesis and reduce the amount of technical details-- Yet, some/many of the reviewers comments seemingly were directed at a much more technical level. --------------- Project: 7.7.2.18 Brooklyn College Title: Development of Pollution Prevention Technologies Presenter: Juergen Polle Presentation Date: Friday, April 08, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 4.33 0.47 6 Progress 4.67 1.49 6 Relevance 5.00 1.29 6 Critical Success Factors 3.50 0.76 6 1. Project Approach The project performers have implemented technically sound research, development, and deployment approaches and demonstrated necessary results to meet their targets Page 185 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:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 183: 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?