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: 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
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. analysis tool to map this potential. This is expected to provide a good baseline to assess potential across U.S. waters. Differential costs of development across the landscape can be included later to calculate the net value in specified areas. 2.3. NC 2.4. NC 2.5. Our previous analyses, including international and historic activities, are documented in our FY10 report “Macroalgae as a Biomass Feedstock: A Preliminary Analysis”. 2.6. We agree that the macroalgae growth model needs critical peer-review and validation. The current model considers energy balance components including PAR and light and water quality aspects such as water temperature, salinity, and turbidity. Growth rate and other biophysical parameters for Macrocystis and Saccharina/Laminaria will be derived from peer-reviewed literature. Observation data from the literature and field sites will be used for validation. 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: 3 The project should be viewed as not relevant without the requisite preliminary analysis. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 3 Much of the information related to this project already exists in the literature. Its assembly and modelling has merit if realistically done. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 3 There is a need to evaluate macroalgae as biomass resource to enable Biomass Multi-Year Program Plan goals. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 4 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 5 The project is relevant to strategic goals. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 2 Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3 Relevance of survey results is contigent on validation of growth and sustainable harvest models. Presenter Response 3.1. NC 3.2. The macroalgae growth model requires critical peer-review and validation. Observation data from the literature and PNNL's own field sites will be used for model validation. 3.3. NC 3.4. NC 3.5. NC 3.6. We agree that the macroalgae growth model requires critical peer-review and validation. The current model considers energy balance components including PAR and light attenuation as well as water quality aspects such as water temperature, salinity, and turbidity. Growth rate and other biophysical parameters for Macrocystis and Saccharina/Laminaria will be derived from peer-reviewed literature. Observation data from the literature and field sites will be used for model validation. Results from the macroalgae growth model can be used to guide decisions around harvest intensity Page 87 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:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 85: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?