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 Resources could be better allocated by removing geographical constraints and focusing on regions with a scientific basis for having a higher probablity of success. Presenter Response Review comment 1: The basis of the work in this modest effort was to collect some of the relevant data on S. latissima composition and one proven method of conversion that could work with wet feedstocks and utilize all the biomass (see comment 1 under section 2). Review comment 2: See comment 2 under section 1. Review comment 3: Thank you for your comments. Further resource assessment and an environmental impact study would be worthy additions to the research portfolio at DOE. Review comment 4: Review comment 5: Different variables of interest will be chosen by different investigators within the constraints of their program. Given that we needed to work with Canadian colleagues on the Atlantic coast as advocated by the Canadian Funding agency and we are located on the Pacific coast, this geographical variable was chosen. The other variable was the amount of different polysaccharides over the course of the annual growth cycle. This is of great relevance to potential biochemical conversion processes where it would be desirable to have the highest concentration (wt/wt total kelp biomass) of the more easily hydrolyzed and bio-converted laminarin (non-crystalline glucose polymer) and mannitol (directly utilizable sugar alcohol). The percentage of alginate and fucoidan would be relevant to both thermochemical and biochemical conversion processes with respect to solids loading possible with these highly viscous hydro-gel forming acidic polysaccharides. Pre-processing to address this issue was performed under the hydrothermal liquefaction task enabling solids loading of 22% after just two tests. The compositional analysis study was designed to collect data of relevance to both biochemical and thermochemical conversion processes to be of maximum relevance. The research on the hydrothermal conversion process represents approximately 20% (please check this number) of our effort to date. Review comment 6: Project: 9.6.6.2 Sandia National Labs Title: Modeling and Visualizing Algae Biofuel Production Potential in Canada Presenter: Howard Passell Presentation Date: Friday, April 08, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 4.00 0.82 6 Progress 4.50 0.76 6 Relevance 4.67 1.11 6 Critical Success Factors 3.83 1.07 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: 5 This is seemingly a viable approach. What could not be presented are the list of assumptions that are Page 212 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. behind this end-product. It should be a required output that these are reviewed with a panel of experts, and either accepted as logical or whetehr some several modifications should be made to increase the value of the model. I believe at this point, a techno-economic evaluation and LCA should be applied to the conclusions at this stage. If there is no hope, no further polishing of the model is required. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 4 This is a modelling project with sliders for average solar irradiance, environment specific parameters etc. It examines co-location tradeoffs (e.g., biofuels' facilities and power plants etc.). A major challenge for this project is to apply the theoretical data to real future production, which the PIs appear to recognize. Among the weaknesses of the model is one Redfield ratio for all algae (different taxonomic groups have different Redfield ratios), the theoretical productivity levels used, and co-location challenges. The project personnel may want to review published literature in the areas to improve the models. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4 •To build a prototype computer simulation model that will: –allow users to evaluate and visualize algae cultivation and biodiesel production capabilities at multiple sites across Canada –allow users to simulate tradeoffs associated with different resource co-location strategies (wastewater, waste CO2, waste heat) – lay groundwork for larger scale algae biodiesel productivity modeling Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 3 See comments under Relevance. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 5 The goal was to make a simulation model for multiple sites across Canada. The approach is technically sound but it was not clear to me whether this modelling exercise was an isolated effort or would contribute to other modelling efforts. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3 The modeling should be used to underscore the fundemetnal disadvantges of northern locations. Presenter Response 2. Technical Progress and Accomplishments Please evaluate the degree to which the project has made progress in its objectives and stated project management plan has met its objectives in achieving milestones and overcoming technical barriers Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 5 It is difficult to judge progress. While the model may be nearly complete, what are the outputs and how do they match with reason or reality? Also what were the inputs? Finally, what is the resulting case that the model delivers? Maybe a 1-day workshop/conference to cover these should be arranged before the project close, and certainly before further work is done. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 4 This project is 75% complete and will end in September 2011. The project will produce a theoretical product. Page 213 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:
Page 161 and 162: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 211: 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?