Reviewer Comments - EERE

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