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. 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, 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: 7 The CSFs are enumerated more as the deliverables of the work. That is not too objectionable, given the thoughtful analysis leading to the program. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 8 Continued attention to detail and QC is important. Interaction with an appropriate DoE-funded project(s) that have production scale facilities towards end of project would be ideal. Perhaps program managers can help here. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 7 Project aims to develop a suite of rapid, accurate, and reproducible analytical methods for determination of algal biomass composition that can be applied to whole cell biomass as well as fractions generated by processing of the biomass. Effort further aims to apply optimization of biomass pretreatment, including enzymatic hydrolysis and conversion operations of the biomass with integration into a single, efficient process. These items are a tall order to be achieved in this short period of time. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 7 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 7 Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 7 High marks here. In particular the use of ASTM standards from the get go. Correlating that to the profiles of the strains grown is appropriate. The program becomes even better when it considers natural wild mixed cultures instead of pure strains. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3 Plans for earliest possible techno-economic modeling to produce quantitative goals for feasibility demonstration is essential. 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. Page 30 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 Comments Reviewer: 1 This cannot be scored yet. For success, there must be coordination, and there will be significant use of the results. Reviewer: 2 Good goals for this. Reviewer: 3 Too early to tell. Reviewer: 4 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 The potential for technology transfer is good. Reviewer: 6 Very well organized and appropriate, actually excellent balance between NREL, Sandia, and ASU. Reviewer: 7 Excellent cooperation with external institutions during robin development of analytical procedures. Good sharing with many results public. 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 There is significant potential with this project. It is extremely well designed. Reviewer: 2 If project continues with current scientific rigor and pragmatic outlook, high success is possible. Reviewer: 3 Interesting presentation. What is the rationale for the selection of Chlorella, Scenedesmus, and Nannochloropsis in this work? Definition of the species and strains is important for the proper assessment of the effort and its outcomes. Please identify the precise strains employed. Overlap with the work performed in other supported projects? Reviewer: 4 Overall Impression: 7 The focus is biochemical conversion of algal biomass, but the presentation acknowledges that biomass Page 31 of 223
Page 1 and 2: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 29: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 81 and 82:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?