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 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 The potential is there if brought to fruition. Reviewer: 2 Checking the model would lead to more tech transfer (i.e check the algal physiology literature, check physical sites for co-location). Reviewer: 3 Transfer of know-how gained in this effort should be straightforward, and the PIs are commented for planning to publish their results in the peer-reviewed literature. Reviewer: 4 See comments under Relevance. Reviewer: 5 The main technology transfer effort seems to be toward adapting the model to other countries/regions. Reviewer: 7 Publicatoins and presentations ensure good tech transfer. 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 We may already know that algae is not viable as a feedstock for diesel in these northern climates. This tool should be used as is to bring this question to an answer. If we have to have municipal treatment plants available to provide nutrients, this certainly provides a boundary condition for biodiesel production possibility. If the question was answered, no more work on the model is warranted, and alternative solutions may be studied by scientists in both countries without polishing this work further. Reviewer: 2 This project may have taken too theoretical an approach. Page 216 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. Reviewer: 3 This project entails a useful background analysis that, once performed, should be available to the field for a long time to come. Reviewer: 4 See comments under Relevance. Reviewer: 5 This seemed to be a reasonable modelling effort. Its impact (beyond model development) would be more significant if there was more interaction with potential industrial partners. Reviewer: 7 Results of previous modeling clearly show that Northern lattitudes are very unlikely to be good locations for algal biofuel production. The goal should be re-directed to produce a good model that is not specific to a geography. Presenter Response Project: 9.6.6.1 NREL Title: US-Canada Algal Biofuels Partnership Presenter: Philip Pienkos Presentation Date: Friday, April 08, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 3.40 1.36 5 Progress 3.80 1.17 5 Relevance 3.40 1.02 5 Critical Success Factors 3.40 1.50 5 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: 2 The approach is open to question in that is not clear why the US labs, especially NREL, are doing what they are. Why should NREL generate a culture collection of 100 strains from Canadian waters? What are the Canadians doing? What is the pertinence or significance of the experimental approach outlined in the presentation? Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5 This project is a microalgal strain discovery and culture collection delivery grant for strains that grow well at northern (cold) latitudes. The biofuels' industry could be seasonable in Canada, to benefit from long photoperiod and suitable temperature in late spring-early fall; however, the presentation did not Page 217 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:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 215: 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?