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: 2 This is an important area for DoE; some biofuels must come from algae (due to the chemical realities of different molecules for different purposes). Also, there are additional products (plastics) that will demand algal biofuels, even when we kick the petroleum habit. If algal biomass production were coupled to watershed clean-up (e.g., the Mississippi, the amount of biomass produced could be significant and drive a much larger part of total biofuels in the future from algal sources. Reviewer: 3 There is an absolute need of continuity in this Algal Biomass program. Three years of R&D is not sufficient to bring about a successful outcome, as the case would be with any and all new and ambitious programs. The stakes for the country and the world are enormous, and the effort ought to reflect this very fact. I should emphasize that microalgal biofuels is an area the private sector has embraced with enthusiasm, and where private industry funds have been invested. The federal government and the DOE ought to take a queue from the trail of "private sector investments" in this field and to help accelerate this line of R&D with continuous support beyond the initial three-year period of funding. Reviewer: 4 There are no additional recommendations. Reviewer: 5 For the large projects, it is vital that the managers pressure the investigators to objectively evaluate and integrate their individual results relative to large scale production. Otherwise, it will be too easy for individuals to focus on individual processes and be left with an array of unrelated results. Reviewer: 6 It would be helpful to have independent experts develop the road map, as opposed to those who will shortly be applying for large expenditures of funds along the lines of the roadmap. Also, it would be helpful to permit a longer time for preperation from the time of the RFP, and to instill a more rigorous review process of the proposals. Reviewer: 7 It might be useful to require projects to establish specific, quantitative goals direclty related to algal biofuel commercial requirements. Focus on the biggest technical hurdles--growth, harvest, and extraction. Some of the risk assesment and co-product studies appear to be premature because strain and process will dramatically affect characteristics. Co-product and risk assesment work should be limited to early feasibility demonstration. The program will not fail due to lack of technology to convert lipids to fuels, so this work should be minimized. Peer Review Presentations need more structure imposed by DOE--a summary slide of specific quantitative goals, baseline, achieved, and expected results against those goals, and decision points based on resutls. Any economic projections need to be accompanied by assumptions and calculations. There are many strain screening efforts. A centralized database for the results might be valuable. Validation of screening processes against strain performance in pilot operations is needed. A standaridzied, small scale, rapid measuremetn system for strain performance validated against longe term outdoor cutlivation would be extremely valuable. A statistical analysis of algae biodiversity based on strain data already collected might be a useful tool to determine if continued bioprospecting is likley to Page 8 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. find a strain with traits sufficient for commericialization. Process research efforts appear to be hindered by a lack of algae supply. Considerable resources are used and time delays incurred by projects growing algae on very small scale. The DOE should consider developing algae supply agreements with facilities that can supply kg to 10's of kg dry basis quantities of custom grown algae feedstock to researchers. NREL techno economic modeling is an essential tool and should be expanded to evaluate scenarios based on pilto results and conceptual projections. Project: 9.5.1.1 Los Alamos National Laboratory Title: NAABB An Algal Biofuels Consortium Presenter: Jose Olivares Presentation Date: Thursday, April 07, 2011 Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 5.71 1.28 7 Progress 5.57 0.49 7 Relevance 7.29 0.70 7 Critical Success Factors 5.71 1.16 7 1. Project Approach Please evaluate the degree to which: 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: 6 This is an enormous project There has been significant effort at lining up the approaches on several different lines of attack. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5 Scaled well from lab bench to large facility at Pecos. Project participants are strong. However, all participants need to focus on the end goal of biofuel production, and it would likely be helpful for a project meeting to be held soon at Pecos, to highlight the importance (and challenges) of scale. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 8 The NAABB Algal Biofuels Consortium aims to address key barriers across the entire chain of algal biofuels production. As such, it is an integrated program that aims to develop tools via which to address current issues in algal biofuels. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 4 See Overall Impression text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 5 Very broad goals encompass almost every topic within biofuel production. Page 9 of 223
Page 1 and 2: 2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 7: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 59 and 60:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?