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. Algae R&D Platform Overview Title: Platform Overview - Joyce Yang Presenter: Technology Manager Presentation Date: Thursday, April 07, 2011 Criteria Avg. Score Stud Deviation Count Relevance 7.67 1.60 6 Approach 7.00 1.83 6 Progress 6.50 2.36 6 1. Relevance Please evaluate the degree to which: Platform goals, technical targets, and barriers are clearly articulated and logical Platform goals and planned activities support the goals and objectives outlined in the MYPP Achieving Platform goals will increase the commercial viability of biofuels. How could the Platform change to better support the Biomass Program goals? Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 5 The very high level OBP goals as targeted by EISA were spelled out. There has been significant investment in projects over the past two years, including one massive investment in NAABB. But it is clear from the presentation that goals are yet to be set. There is an implication from one of the slides that Sustainability and Analysis were done to an extent up front. I am not sure how apparent that is in the project selection, however. Many of the projects seem to suffer from a lack of analysis-based goal and deliverable setting. An improved delivery here might discuss some back-of-the-envelope technoeconomic assessments which allow one to key in at early stages on specific areas of the slide titled Roadmap Categories, further expounded in the next 4 slides on next steps and integration. In other words, a little deeper technical description would have helped make a better case for project selection. One could even have pasted the specific projects on the Integration diagrams. There are few enough programs that this could have been done and maybe have bolstered project selection decisions. I unfortunately came away with questions as to how certain projects were selected. Some of the projects lacked a mission-focus that I would expect for projects which are basically determining whether algae should be a feedstock or not. If FY2013 is the year of "Downselection" then each of the Projects should concretely map onto the pathway leading to that selection, and goals/deliverables should have been developed which will allow that to happen. This should have been bolstered by at least rudimentary techno-economics. Maybe the projects were selected this way. It sure was not apparent from some of the presentations. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 7 The general platform goals involving feedstock development, cultivation, harvest, extraction and conversion, and fuel production/distribution are sound. It is keenly important to connect basic and applied scientists and to make sure each end of this equation understands the potential and limitations of the status quo across the platform. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 10 Effort by the program is directly along the lines of the Algal Biomass mission Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 9 Although the Algal Biofuels Roadmap was rather uncritical and did not do much to narrow down which Page 2 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. technologies are suitable for biofuel production, it has provided a good framework for organizing the research program. Thus, the objectives of the funded projects are in-line with what is needed to resolve the many questions on algae biofuel production. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 8 Good presentation of Program goals and objectives. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 0 Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 7 It is important to recognize these research activities as a long term effort with low probability of success, with the potential for very high benefits. The focus on productivity, harvesting, de-watering, extraction and process economics is highly relevant. Algal biofuels projects for specific geographies do not support platform goals and technical targets because the geographies have not been chosen based on science. Some of the detailed work on co-products, upgrading oil to fuel, and risk assessment appears to be premature because a neither commercial strains nor commercial processes have been identified. 2. Approach Please evaluate the degree to which: Platform approaches are effective, as demonstrated by the extent to which: Platform milestones and organization; project portfolio; and strategic directions facilitate reaching Program Performance Goals as outlined in the MYPP The Platform portfolio is focused and balanced to achieve Biomass Program and Platform goals, as demonstrated by: Work Breakdown Structure; unit operations; and pathway prioritization Please explain your score by commenting on the strengths and weakness evaluated What changes would increase the effectiveness of the Platform? Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 5 There was a framework established for constructing the evaluation of algae as a potential feedstock for biofuels production in the future. As mentioned previously, there did not appear to be significant evidence of direction-setting using technoeconomic assessments. The portfolio should then be balanced with respect to the key drivers. It may be that most of the funds should be spent on biology, since without adequate productivity per organism, algae will not be a cost-viable feedstock. One would like to hit this hard so as to be able to come to a decision point in FY2013 or FY2014. Part of the OBP program should be a rapid identification of those feedstocks that are viable and those that are not, so as to be able to throttle expenditures here and spend more on the next economic bottlenecks. As a general comment, some of the programs are doing a better job at the WBS to provide useful deliverables, while others would seem to require some oversight. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5 The type of review meeting held here should be useful to the personnel of the projects. Some of the projects have great focus by dedicated and expert scientists/engineers. However, there are a number of weak projects in the current portfolio. It is especially important that modelling projects use realistic input data and have excellent knowledge of background literature. In some cases, the goals are appropriate to a project but the likelihood of success by that group of investigators is low due to mismatched expertise. Page 3 of 223
Page 1: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 5 and 6: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 53 and 54:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?