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. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3 The climate is a critical factor to success that this project cannot address. Presenter Response Review comment 1: We agree that economic analyses are highly desirable. This project had neither scope nor budget for such analyses initially, however, once technical feasibility is demonstrated and we have data a preliminary techno-economic analysis could be built. This project is more closely aligned with points ii (Feedstock Supply R&D) and iii (Downstream Refining R&D) in the review criteria. Therefore, we emphasized our critical success factors in light of those criteria, namely “biomass characteristics” from point ii and “conversion” from point iii. Review comment 2: These are very important and critical factors to consider in the context of an investigation of the broad issues surrounding the potential use of macroalgae as a feedstock. Unfortunately, this was not within the scope of our effort. Review comment 3: See responses to comments 1 and 2 Review comment 4: Review comment 5: We apologize to the reviewers, in the 10 minutes allotted for the presentation to cover the 12 mandatory slides in the template the level of detail had to be controlled within the presentation. The “challenge/solution” format was our attempt to address this in a few seconds. The solutions were presented in modest detail in the preceding “technical progress” slides. Review comment 6: We agree that the climate is a critical success factor for the growth of biomass feedstocks for conversion to biofuels. Brown algae (phaeophytes) grow best in cooler climates/waters and that was one of the reasons we chose to investigate them in the light of this US-Canadian project arising from the US-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue and the International program at DOE. 5. Technology Transfer and Collaborations Please comment on the degree to which the project adequately interfaces and coordinates with other institutions and projects to provide additional benefits to the Biomass Program, such as publications, awards, or others. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 I believe there could be potential here for knowledge generation that would contribute to the biomass program as a whole. It is not being addressed. Reviewer: 2 The current work may not have a high potential for tech transfer. Reviewer: 3 This may be irrelevant for macroalgae, pending the environmental impact analysis. Alternatively, know how from this effort may be applied to cultivated macroalgae or microalgae, projects that are currently supported by the Program. Reviewer: 4 The Canadian partners are collecting Atlantic kelp; what else? What are NREL and SNL doing? Reviewer: 5 Discussion of technology transfer was very limited. Reviewer: 7 Broad sharing through publications and presentation. Page 210 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. Presenter Response General Comment by PI: This project was proposed and funded under the auspices of the DOE international program to encourage collaboration between US and Canadian scientists in areas of mutual interest under the US-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue. Review comment 1: We are generating knowledge about a biomass feedstock (kelp) common to both countries that has not been well studied in that regard, i.e., as a feedstock. Review comment 2: Review comment 3: Review comment 4: Dr. O’Leary and staff in Canada are collecting and shipping samples of kelp to the US for compositional analysis and conversion experiments. Dr. O’Leary is a source of considerable expertise in the area of macroalgae. Our Canadian colleagues are also providing expertise in DNA extraction from kelp species, primer selection and PCR amplification for genus and/or species confirmation by sequencing. This has been very helpful (efficient) since developing extraction procedures for new organisms is often rather time consuming. They are also performing these analyses on our Pacific coast samples. Unfortunately, there was limited time to go into details on everything we are doing. NREL and SNL are performing projects of mutual interest to US (DOE) and Canada (NRC) on microalgae. They were specifically scoped to be non-overlapping. However, we communicate monthly since all of the US national labs are working with the same Canadian partnering organization and it has been a very fruitful and satisfying collaboration in that regard. Review comment 5: Review comment 6: 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 Some true justification studies would increase the value of this work significantly. The selection of conversion to bio-oil is not justified. If one were considering floating hydrothermal conversion plants, why? Should solar collection be used to create a new conversion process that might yield products with less oxygen content? So what is the basis for the work? More could be squeezed out of this. Reviewer: 2 This project suffers from a weak design for new data collection and inadequate review of background literature. Reviewer: 3 There are good elements in this work, pertaining to the development of technologies for the extraction of product from biomass. I recommend the PIs focus their efforts in this area, and please properly assess the impact of harvesting the oceans' algae for biomass and biofuels. Reviewer: 4 See Approach comments. Reviewer: 5 The seasonal composition portion of the project may be of very limited value because of its sampling protocol. It was difficult to evaluate how aggressively the hydrothermal conversion processing portion of the project was being pursued. Page 211 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:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 209: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 223: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?