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 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 I am leary of projects which seem to have a mystical component, and for which the science is not established and shared and discussed. Yet I believe this work should be funded because just maybe there is something there. In this case I would set very stringent criteria and deliverables and stick to them. Reviewer: 2 The presentation made it diffifult to evaluate the practicality of the work. Reviewer: 3 This is a worthwhile effort seeking to advance a single-step conversion of algae to biodiesel using heat, methanol, and a catalyst from a proof-of-concept (laboratory) to a pilot-scale algae-to-biodiesel reactor that will allow for testing of process commercialization potential. Given the focal point of this effort, and the fact that the facilities are in place, the Program should expect significant outcomes from this work. Reviewer: 4 Plan looks reasonable based on limited information provided, but some preliminary economic assessment is expected at this stage of development. Reviewer: 5 The project is relevant to program goals, but the presentation did not adequately address all of my questions. Reviewer: 6 A good pilot facility made with little relevance to microalgae but again this system could work very well for another feedstock wherein pretreatment conditions could be controlled (likely soybeans). Reviewer: 7 The process appears to have energy balance and economic challenges driven by the need for low moisture feedstock. Presenter Response Project: 9.6.6.3 PNNL Title: Canada Algal Collaboration-PNNL Presenter: Jon Magnuson Presentation Date: Friday, April 08, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 3.33 1.37 6 Page 204 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. Progress 3.67 1.49 6 Relevance 3.50 1.38 6 Critical Success Factors 3.17 1.34 6 1. Project Approach The project performers have implemented technically sound research, development, and deployment approaches and demonstrated necessary results to meet their targets The project performers have identified a project management plan that includes well-defined milestones and adequate methods for addressing potential risks. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 3 I understand some of the technical Approach, but am baffled by the rest. I understand that the kelp may be another feedstock ultimately. We should understand the composition and if it varies with the time of year or locale or other variable, this should be studied as well. Preliminary data was presented showing high carbohydrate levels. The approach at this point should be to consider the compositional analysis and then choose one or more optimal methods for recovering the energy in these components. It may be for fine chemical use, or saccharification, or other process alternative. Why immediately jump to conversion to bio-oil through hydrothermal liquefaction? What is the basis for this choice? In addition, the logistics of ultimate product production should be a factor in the design of an approach. Where is the feedstock produced, and how to transport to point of conversion is important. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 2 This project considers the potential use of kelps from Canadian waters in biomass to biofuels ' conversion based upon mannitol and laminarian content. The PIs should consider the data on carbohydrate concentrations of kelps and nutrient effects on carbohydrate content of kelps exists in the literature-, for example from eastern Canada (New Brunswick, T. Chopin), France (studies at Roscoff), and Japan/China. It is of concern that data presented on kelp carbohydrate content were from a single site on each side of the Canadian coast (and even lacked characterization of water mass nutrients from that one site/coast). Unreplicated data are likely to contribute to poor sensitivity of the anlyses. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4 Use joint US-Canada resources and expertise to characterize macroalgae with regard to composition and conversion to bio-oil. Develop process to convert Atlantic and Pacific coastal biomass to bio-oil/biofuels. This approach is a non-starter as the ecological consequences of making biofuels from marine coastal macroalgae has many environmentally and ecological pitfalls that make it untenable. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 6 The seasonal sampling of seaweed for compositional analysis seems like a topic that would have been covered extensively in past ecological literature. No literature is mentioned. In any case, apparently seasonal samples are needed for hydrothermal treatment. By national lab standards, the budget is modest for monthly sampling and thermal conversion. Does this presentation represent some work being supported separately by the Canadian government? Is there any preliminary economic analysis of the seaweed to fuel process? What is the expectation on cost and resource availability, even at a preliminary level? It would be good for this project and the one described by Guri Roesijadi to clearly show the level of collaboration/integration. Only the Acknowledgments slide suggests any cross-over. It seems like a reasonable project, but one that could be better represented by an integration of the two presentations. Page 205 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:
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: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 203: 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?