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.
end bioproduct also limits understanding of the relevance”, the project is not proposing genetic
engineering of Saccharina latissima although this fundamental suggestion would be of interest to other
agencies. Our “end bioproduct” is a drop-in biofuel that would be derived via hydrothermal liquefaction
and hydrotreating to make a renewable non-oxygenated liquid transportation fuel. Review comment 2:
Site selection, economic analysis, aquaculture design and implementation are very worthy endeavors.
However, such an expansive analysis was not within the scope of this project. I agree that this would be
challenging and many factors need to be considered. Generating some (but certainly not all) of the
technical data upon which to base decisions about the feasibility of macroalgae harvesting and/or
aquaculture and subsequent conversion to biofuels and other bioproducts is one of the goals of this
project. Review comment 3: Review comment 4: Review comment 5: Thank-you Review comment 6:
4. Critical Success Factors
The project has identified critical factors, (including technical, business, market, regulatory, and legal
factors) that impact the potential technical and commercial success of the project
The project has presented adequate plans to recognize, address, and overcome these factors
The project has the opportunity to advance the state of technology and impact the viability of commercial
algal biomass feedstock supply and conversion, through one or more of the following:
i. Cross-Cutting Analysis (ex. economic analysis, sustainability analysis, resource assessments, risk
assessments)
ii. Feedstock Supply R&D (ex. biology, cultivation, resource use, biomass characteristics,
harvesting/dewatering)
iii. Downstream Refining R&D (ex. extraction, conversion, fuel, products, fuel/product infrastructure and
end-use)
iv. Environmental sustainability (example: water use, GMOs, energy consumption)
Reviewer Comments
Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 2
A more detailed assessment of the critical success factors are highly warranted. To justify the project as
beneficial to the coastal biofuels production where most of the world's population and demand exists is
woefully inadequate as justification. It could be that the nature of the feedstock will require comminution,
solar drying, and transport as low moisture tablets to specific, select coastal conversion centers where the
polysaccharides are recovered for conversion to plastics in order to make true techno-economic sense.
This sort of analysis is highly desirable, and has its own set of critical success factors.
Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 2
The scientific data input and market/regulatory environment for siting are not well considered and plans
to make adjustments to this problem were not evident in the presentation.
Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 3
PIs ought to perform an ecological and environmental impact analysis to properly assess feasibility.
Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 6
See Approach comments.
Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 3
Critical success factors were identified, but there was relatively little explicit discussion about the main
challenges in kelp conversion and how they would be overcome.
Page 209 of 223