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.
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