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. of progress. Hidden assumptions in productivity numbers and project economics further obfuscate the state of progress. 3. Project Relevance The project both identifies with and contributes to meeting the platform goals and objectives of the Biomass Program Multi-Year Program Plan The project has considered applications of the expected outputs Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 4 It is hard to guess the relevance. If the deliverables were better defined, they may be compared with the OBP program goals. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 8 The projects goals align with the Biomass program. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 8 The Cellana project addresses operational aspects of microalgal cultivation, cost of production & process sustainability Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 3 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 6 The project is highly relevant to program goals. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 5 It's relevant to look at marine strains and Hawaii is an appropriate place. In terms of applicaitons, the use of defatted biomass as an animal feed is overlooking the reality that lipids are the desired nutrient of fish farmer. So the real value for feeds is in the lipids, specifically those with neutaceutical value. Was this considered? Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4 Operating and optimizing a real world cultivation system is essential for the potential development of algae biofuels. Specific project work on economics and co-products are not relevant to commercial scale biofuel production. 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, Page 22 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. 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: 4 Goals are listed rather than CSFs. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 4 Some factors are well-considered at this early stage (e.g., ability to return seawater without nutrient enrichment to sea due to algal N depletion to cause lipids to rise). Others need more attention. For example, more attention is needed on the effect of different strains and conficting goals of lipid extraction on byproducts (e.g., aquaculture feeds). Algal strains lacking high carotenoid levels are needed for production of fish pellets for cod to prevent them being pink, not white....a market problem. A major current deficiency in aquaculture feeds for marine fish is to supply omega 3 fatty acids---this is leading to overfishing of small fish and krill to supply protein/omega 3 fatty acids to salmon etc farms. It would be helpful for this young project to address how problems such as this can be addressed to produce valuable byproducts (e.g. aquaculture feeds) while producing biofuels in a sustainable manner. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 7 As with the other projects, these revolve around microalgal productivity, efficiency and cost of harvesting, downstream carbon intensity, and aquafeed product value. Cellana should talk to RAE, as they have developed an apparently efficient way of harvesting algal biomass. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 3 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 5 Critical success factors were described but it was unclear whether the project will overcome these factors using traditional approaches. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 2 The presentation of the data was "couched" in terms that were misleading. The group has no extraction technology put in place and no obvious mechanism to deal with the salt that will be most prevalent. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4 Critical success factors are identified, but they are defined in the context of producing a high value algae product. A limited amount of technology developed is likely to be applicable to large scale biofuel production. 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. Page 23 of 223
Page 1 and 2: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 21: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 73 and 74:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223:
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?