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 Comments Reviewer: 1 Coordination with other efforts on LCAs and technoeconomic assessments should be exploited to maximize benefits. Reviewer: 2 Little yet but project is young and shows excellent promise here. Reviewer: 3 Models will be used to assist the DOE with target development and research interactions. Reviewer: 4 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 The potential for technology transfer is very good. Reviewer: 6 Not appropriately linked to consortium projects yet. Reviewer: 7 Plans for publication and model sharing are very valuable. Presenter Response Again, integration with consortia is taking place as we speak. We look forward to this expanded collaboration with other tea and lca practioners. 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 This seemed to be the project that was most on target with what the OBP program needs. Once again, any responsible technoeconomic modeling effort adds value. Reviewer: 2 Strong project with good sensitivity analysis. Reviewer: 3 Rigorous algae baseline technoeconomic analysis and user models have been developed for the Biomass Program and algae community - 3 pathways examined: open pond, photobioreactor, heterotrophic. This is a nice and low-cost techno-economic analysis project. Speaker needs to point his (laser) pointer to what he is talking about on the screen. Also, for the non-economists, please explain how to read the sensitivity X-Y plots. Page 48 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: 4 Overall Impression: 8 Adaptable TEAs are important for assessing technological progress. However, several TEAs have been published recently and another is being developed, apparently independently, at INL (also reviewed). The major advance that must come from this project is a model that is easily used and modified by others. That should be the primary goal. "User-friendly" is mentioned in the presentation. For example, any use of dissolved air flotation and chemical coagulation is unrealistic and will need to be substituted for lowcost, low energy intensity technologies. The apparent involvement of undisclosed commercial partners raises a question about objectivity of the TEA assumptions. Presumably safeguards are in place, but these should be described. Of course, many of the OBP projects include commercial partner. The particular importance in this case is that a general decision support tool for the algae community is being developed. Transparency and ability to modify the assumptions should continue to be emphasized. For the heterotrophic model, the documentation should make clear that cellulosic sugar is not yet available. Use of cellulosic sugar is a huge assumption at this point. The projected autotrophic lipid productivity by both ponds and PBRs is reasonable for near term capabilities. The much higher evaporation and blowdown of the ponds compared to the PBRs should be substantiated--how was the evaporation of PBR cooling water estimated? The PBR sensitivity analysis is stretched beyond the conceivable, based on this calculation: The 8-cm diam. tubes contain 63 L of liquid per m2 of tube. The presentation gives 1.25 g/L-d as the base case productivity, or 63 L x 1.25 g/L-d = 78 g/m2-d. This is already a very high productivity, which is then projected in the sensitivity analysis to 3.0 g/L-d or 234 g/m2-d, which is not credible. The same comment could apply to the 60 g/m2-d projected for ponds. Sensitivity analysis might be conducted in terms of a combined modest improvement in productivity and in cost, to achieve more rational estimates. The tornado graph single factor graph is a step towards that. What if any efforts are being made to complement the apparently duplicative effort of INL (Newby presenter)? Reviewer: 5 Very relevant project, good approach, and good presentation. Reviewer: 6 Best of the modeling projects and well organized and an important effort. The PI should interact actively with the consortiums, however, to bring this model to appropriate execution. Would be very useful to use this model to "harness" the overal efforts of the consortiums, and to organize them towards a single goal of commercializing a specific pathway. Finally, be careful on the AD assumptions. An added carbon stream will be required to get the methane production if defatted algae is the principle feed. Reviewer: 7 This project is likely the best investment made by DOE fro the algae platform. Flexibility should be incorporated into the model and the application should be be expanded and required for research efforts. Page 49 of 223
Page 1 and 2: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 47: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 99 and 100:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?