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: 3 Criteria Score: 7 Too early to tell. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 7 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 7 Progress thus far was mainly on QA/QC issues between labs. Project plans were sound. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 8 Fine for time funded. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4 Good progress is evident in standardized characterization of algae biomass. It appears that the basic criteria for measuring progress in pre-treatment and biomass conversion are not in place. Growing biomass appears to be a bottleneck. Partnership with facility that can supply kg quantities might be valuable. Presenter Response The primary criteria for measuring progress in pre-treatment and biomass conversion for this project will be based on the mass of both carbohydrate and lipid removed/extracted from algae grown under different growth regimes (See above section in Approach). Coupling the advanced characterization method development and leveraging the experience within the team in quantifying cellulosic biochemical conversion, along with the detailed biochemical fingerprinting (QA/QC) enables the SABC to develop and then apply critical tools to allow for quantification of the biochemical conversion process in algal biomass. Defining the criteria and developing the tools to help quantify the biochemical conversion processes are a critical early objective for the project. Biomass supply in the kg range will come from the lead institution ASU. We have devoted significant time and resources into the biomass supply pipeline to ensure adequate supply. We are confident in our ability to meet the needs of the project as defined. However, we are always actively exploring where we can expand the potential sourcing of biomass especially as we look to year two activities and or if we progress faster than expected and have the desire/need to take things to a larger scale or look at additional production strains - especially from [pre]-commercial sources (especially from any of the other DOE funded consortia). 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: 8 The project has the potential to be extremely relevant. Investigators have considered this aim in the program definition. Page 28 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: 2 Criteria Score: 8 Bench-top scale is the major limitation, but project personnel indicated their hope to provide their data on best feedstock species/growth conditions and processing for biofuels to other DoE projects that could implement at larger (production-scale) facilities. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 7 The work provides a basis for integrated algal bio-refinery operations while offering a broad biofuel portfolio. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 7 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 7 The project goals are highly relevant to the Biomass Program plan. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 9 Most relevant given that focus on whole cell use for fabrication of a range of high value fuels (not just extraction of bio-oil for biodiesel). The deconstruction of biomass fits much of the work being done in the biomass program. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 6 High relevance for algae characterization work. Rational design of process is contingent on having well characterized feedstock. High relevance for biochemical pre-treatment. This addresses a major hurdle in unlocking economical value of algae slurry. Work on converting FAME, FFA, and sugars to fuels is not relevant to overcoming hurdles to algal biofuel commercialization. Algal biofuels will not fail because of fuel conversion process viability. Presenter Response While we acknowledge the general sentiment questioning the relevance of the work converting FAME, FFA, and sugars into fuels as not relevant to overcoming the hurdles to algal biofuel commercialization, we feel some of the nuance of what it really takes to take a new feedstock and make fuel (new or old) may be overlooked in that sentiment. Neither the FAME, FFA, nor sugars produced from algae or any other biomass source will be 100 percent pure or reagent grade. The small portion of the project devoted to making and characterizing finished fuels will evaluate the potential for these impurities to 1) negatively affect conversion process chemistry or operability and 2) negatively affect fuel performance. Additionally, for some fuels such as biodiesel or renewable diesel, both made from lipids, the feedstock chemical structure can have a significant impact on the final fuel properties, potentially in a negative way that would create additional barriers to commercial deployment. While not the main focus of the project, knowing if these issues exist early on will be critical for more rapid commercialization of algal biofuels. 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 Page 29 of 223
Page 1 and 2: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 27: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 79 and 80:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?