Reviewer Comments - EERE

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
Too early to tell, as this is the initial stages of this project.
Reviewer: 4
Overall Impression: 6
LCA modeling is important and GREET is a common format. Because the algae biofuel process train is
not well developed currently, not too much effort should be put into details at this point. However, the
presentation did not provide much information on the scenarios that have been modeled. For example,
what algae cultivation technologies have been implemented in the inventory? Is biomass transport
included, etc.?
The developers should strive to make the model transparent and easy to adapt/modify by outside users. It
should be tied to the parallel TEA model.
Reviewer: 5
Very good project and presentation.
Reviewer: 6
This is a good first start, but may not produce a useful outcome unless grounded in the realities of
commercial microaglae production. The PI would be well advised reading in detail the Benneman and coauthor
reports, spending time at facilities that grow microaglae, and then re-reading these reports. The
development of a Life Cycle Analysis after this activity would help develop better pathways and inputs
and boundary conditions. Make sure all these assumptisns for each unit operation reflect the wisdom of
Benneman/Oswald reports.
Reviewer: 7
The GREET modelling will help screen alternatives, but without an accompanying techno-economic
model it has limited value.
Presenter Response
ANL learned a great deal from Benemann and other earlier work. The Benemann 1996 report was used
extensively. Benemann, Weisman, Goebel, Oswald, and others developed many details, e.g., CO2
transport and transfer, nitrogen recycling, and circulation velocity dependance upon algal species and size
as well as economic constraints. They were helpful in establishing the structure and architecture of the
APM tool. We feel that including the ability to model alternative scenarios and directly compare them
unambiguously with the pragmatic earlier work is an expedient way to help the community to reach
closure on some of the key issues.
Project: 9.2.2.2 University of California - San Diego
Title: Development of Renewable Biofuels Technology by Transcriptomic Analysis and Metabolic
Engineering of Diatoms
Presenter: Mark Hildebrand
Presentation Date: Thursday, April 07, 2011
Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count
Approach 7.57 1.05 7
Page 55 of 223