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. Presenter Response 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. Chemical prices are difficult to determine, and are usually quite volatile. Since this is a preliminary investigation, we are not focusing efforts on optimizing production of particular products. Generally, we have seen prices for most of the likely commodity type products (organic acids, ketones, esters) to be roughly in the same range, which is about 2-3 X the value of a chemically comparable fuel. Also, the value of any chemical will depend on its purity, and this introduces another layer of modeling and cost calculations to determine best candidates for purified chemical markets. 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. I agree that more clarity on volume of production and anticipated costs would be helpful. We will clarify these issues as we continue forward. 2. Technical Progress and Accomplishments Please evaluate the degree to which the project has made progress in its objectives and stated project management plan has met its objectives in achieving milestones and overcoming technical barriers Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 5 Progress has been made as the project aims toward completion. More details and data could have been helful. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 7 Demonstrated fermentation and downstream unit operations, still need to demonstrate integrated process Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 7 The presentation showed accomplishment of key milestones and progress--looks very good. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 7 Well done. Clearly a good pace of data that has been well taken, presented, and characterized. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 5 Successful use of pilot data in techno economic modeling. Modeling results may indicate that this process is not economically viable. Presenter Response Successful use of pilot data in techno-economic modeling. Modeling results may indicate that this process is not economically viable. The scale of these potential applications makes the economics challenging. However, they are Page 72 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. encouraging results if reasonable scale up could be accomplished, perhaps by tapping other available feedstocks available in particular locations. 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: 5 There is moderate relevance in that data on products and productivity will be forthcoming. Some of the products are not as valuable as projected, and conclusions should be provided in a controlled manner. Several details of how the experiments were conducted, and the lack of appreciation for some of the details argue for review beforehand. One example was the specific comments on the addition of significant levels of manure which contain organic acids, and the lack of correction for them. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 7 This project entails efforts at demonstrating low hydrolysis and fermentation costs, as well as an integrated bio and thermochemical platform. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 7 Excellent example of use of local resources for alcohol production, with potential use in other coastal/forested areas. However, it is unclear that this type of local resource utilization project could be scaled to meet significant transportation needs. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 7 The final products are appropriate fuels for the DOE Program. It’s good to look at other products than just biodiesel. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3 It appaears that the potential fuel volumes from this process are very small. The mixed alcohols produced may have unique charactoristics which, combined with the small volumes, make it a nuiscence for fuel production. Presenter Response There is moderate relevance in that data on products and productivity will be forthcoming. Some of the products are not as valuable as projected, and conclusions should be provided in a controlled manner. Several details of how the experiments were carried out, and the lack of appreciation for some of the details argue for review beforehand. Specific comments on the addition of significant levels of manure with organic acids, and the lack of correction for them is an example. Details on experimental methods are documented in our quarterly reports. Time constraints of the presentation precluded giving many details on procedures. I checked back with my research student and he confirmed that, indeed as shown in the fermentation time plot, the initial acid concentration in the fermentation was near zero, indicating very little initial contribution of organic acids from the manure. The manure may have been free of acids because it was dried and acids originally present may have volatilized prior to the manure addition to the fermentation. Excellent example of use of local resources for alcohol production with potential use in other Page 73 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:
Page 21 and 22: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 71: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?