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 This work was too scattered, and it is unclear what the outcomes were. Maybe there are some buried nuggets but they will remain hidden I believe. Reviewer: 2 The project investigated a number of things (including cyanobacteria) in addition to the main goals, and more focus on solving the extract's problems (coloration, odor) might have been in hindsight, better. It would be difficult to recommend that other DoE funded projects take this route to solving the critical problems of nutrients supply based on the data that were presented. Reviewer: 3 This project has the potential of both cleaning up wastewater and generating useful algal biomass. But I would not feed such microalgal biomass back to poultry. Reviewer: 4 Overall Impression: 3 Goals and research topics are too numerous and scattered, and the results are not presented on all topics mentioned: Cultivation-related: poultry waste media, N-fixers, CO2 capture Processing-related: coagulation with fibers, cell disruption, lipid extraction, residuals for feed Other activities: ponds vs PBRs, ethanol production, carpet industry wastewater media Poultry waste media were very dark with only 1% poultry waste. Growth results are difficult to judge from single data graph shown. Ponds vs. PBR: setup is not ideal because the ponds are shallow in deep tanks, causing shading. The productivity values for the PBRs are probably not corrected for lack of shading (edge effect), which is unrealistic at full scale. Carbonation column needs to be evaluated in terms of energy consumption, not only CO2 dissolution efficiency. The column energy consumption will be large. Only one graph and no conclusions provided for N-fixation experiment. Purpose not clearly stated. About seven papers are listed that appear to stem from DOE funding. Despite this nice output, the presentation lacked cohesion and few if any clear conclusions can be drawn from the result presented. The focus on wastewaters is potentially useful. Reviewer: 5 The approach is all lab-scale based and multifaceted. It was unclear whether there was sufficient depth to the different lines of research to prove useful to the Biomass Program. Reviewer: 6 This was a good project addressing an important waste stream. Well situated within farming industry, or solid waste management. Page 70 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: 7 It appears that research results and PLE physical characteristics indicate that this in not a good nutreint source for algal biofuel production. If this conclusion is true, than the value to the algal biofuel program is an analysis of why PLE is unsuitable. The concept of immoblized nitrogen fixation need to be well defined in terms of commercial potential of algal biofuels. Project: 9.2.2.1 University of Maine Title: Production of higher alcohols liquid biofuel via acidogenic digestion and chemical upgrading of industrial biomass streams. Presenter: Peter van Walsum Presentation Date: Thursday, April 07, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 6.20 1.47 5 Progress 6.20 0.98 5 Relevance 5.80 1.60 5 Critical Success Factors 6.40 1.36 5 1. Project Approach The project performers have implemented technically sound research, development, and deployment approaches and demonstrated necessary results to meet their targets The project performers have identified a project management plan that includes well-defined milestones and adequate methods for addressing potential risks. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 4 There is not a good description of the approach. There is no rationale detailed for us to follow the plans. When chemicals are to be the products rather than fuels, some more detailed discussion of the valuable or less valuable products is expected, and strategies for maximizing higher value products should have been part of the Approach. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 7 No breakthroughs needed. Project is focusing on robust technology, cheap feedstock, existing industries to achieve its potential. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 8 The approach was to use conventional wastes from existing local industries, evaluate three different pathways, and to develop process models. The research and approach were sound and well presented. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 7 Good and solid approach to upgrading via three reasonable pathways. Appropriate go or no go criteria, and is an appropriate pathway from microalgae biomass to a fuel. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 5 Good use of techno economic modeling. Project would benefit from clearer definition and communication of goals for the potential volume of fuel production and targets for capital and total fuel costs. Page 71 of 223
Page 1 and 2:
2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 69: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?