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 Criteria Score: 4
Provided preliminary assessment of macroalgae as biofuels feedstock for the United States. Demonstrated
with selected data and test criteria that data for the bio-physical model and selection constraints for the
competing use models can be mapped for the west and east coasts of the United States.
Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 4
See Overall Impressions text.
Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 5
Delivered macroalgae review (preliminary analysis) in FY10; in FY11 goal is to produce specific
resource assessment tool. Unfortunately, the depth of the analysis is unclear. It would have been helpful
to have a better overview of historic and international activities (and previous analyses).
Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 2
Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3
It appears that the growth model needs critical review, refinement and validation prior to application.
Presenter Response
2.1. Our year 1 deliverable was an initial review of the literature and preliminary analysis. For
development of GIS tools, a literature review was completed and initial approach identified. This is
consistent with the timeline developed for this project. 2.2.1. There is currently no macroalgae cultivation
industry in the U.S. for biomass production at the scale needed for biofuels. There is cultivation activity,
but not at levels to constitute an industry. In the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistics 2006, the U.S.
is not listed as a contributor to world production of cultivated macroalgae. With few exceptions, open
water cultivation of macroalgae in the U.S. has been experimental, demonstration, or pilot-scale. The first
lease for open water cultivation in the State of Maine was recently granted to grow kelp for a specialty
market. Likewise, the U.S. contributes only 0.5% of the worldwide harvest of natural stands. The largest
commercial wild kelp harvester ISP Alginates (formerly Kelco) discontinued its leases of kelp beds in
California in the 2005-2006 timeframe and ceased operation. 2.2.2. In project year 1 and the FY10
deliverable, a proof of concept calculation provided an order of magnitude estimate of the area of
macroalgae cultivation for a nominal gasoline replacement of 1% of the current domestic consumption
based on best available data. We estimated about 11,000 square kilometers (equivalent to the area of the
Island of Hawaii) would be needed, illustrating the scale of production needed. We also reviewed
literature on aquaculture projects, developed a needs matrix, and interviewed industry scientists. Based on
this, we identified two groups of kelp as a focus for this year’s assessment: Macrocystis and
Saccharina/Laminaria and related species. Selection was based on species distribution, growth rates, and
biochemical feedstock derived from the literature and our own research. The purpose of this assessment is
to provide the tools/models to generate a critical baseline for which to base future research questions.
Cultivation at the scale above will need to be offshore on suspended scaffolds to avoid competition with
nearshore kelp populations. Depth is not critical because the species would be suspended near the surface,
but wave energy associated with storm frequencies is. In the 1970s, the demonstration project of offshore
Macrocystis production off Southern California saw loss due to late fall storm events. We agree that there
is a need to address storm event frequency and in particular, wave heights. Storm track frequencies, in
addition to remotely-sensed wave height data are publicly available to help develop probabilities of
occurrence that can help assess a prioritization score of candidate sites. This work requires the use of
foundational building blocks to establish the overall assessment. If at this point there is reasonable
potential, we can then work to develop and integrate additional factors providing a more rigorous
assessment. 2.2.3. Our current focus is on biomass production potential and developing a GIS spatial
Page 86 of 223