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 5.1. This is one of two projects focused on macroalgae as a marine biomass in the OBP algae program. Members of our research team are the lead and participants of the “Microalgae analysis” project in the OBP algae program. The other project is the “Collaborative: PNNL -Canada Collaboration”, also being conducted at PNNL. The principle investigator of the current project is also on the research team of the collaboration with Canadian scientists. 5.2. NC 5.3. NC 5.4. NC 5.5. NC 5.6. NC 5.7 We have just started the GIS tool development and assessment. FY10 was concluded with delivery of the report “Macroalgae as a Biomass Feedstock: A Preliminary Analysis”. This report was provided to staff of the Bioenergy Knowledge Discovery Framework. The GIS development and assessment is, in effect, a separate and focused activity that builds on the preliminary analysis. The deliverable for FY11 is a project plan for research to be concluded in the following years and preliminary assessment. Data will be shared when models have been appropriately applied and reviewed. 6. Overall Impressions Please provide an overall evaluation of the project, including strengths, weaknesses, the project approach, scope, and any other overall comments. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 This project seems highly unrealistic and has not had the basic analysis performed to justify the program. Reviewer: 2 Better modelling and better input data relative to macroalgae are critically needed; the current models appear to lack many relevant factors. Reviewer: 3 This project appears to be advocating cultivation and/or harvesting of algal biomass from the coastal regions of the US. If the latter, large tracts of ocean floor would be needed for the biomass-to-biofuels conversion. Is the harvesting of the coastal kelp forests the equivalent of clear cutting in forests? Has the PI addressed ecological and environmental consequences of such a plan? This may be a good exercise on paper but a moot point in practice, as the ecological consequences of large-scale harvesting of algal biomass from coastal regions would likely be untenable in the context of viable biofuels. There is a startup company in Texas that aims to exploit Macrocystis pyrifera upon cultivation on land, in photobioreactors for biofuels generation. This may be an ecologically and environmentally more acceptable approach. Reviewer: 4 Overall Impression: 4 Macroalgae for fuel has been the subject of much research in past decades. The task "Conduct a high level review of biomass feedstock and conversion potential of macroalgae for biofuels production in the United States" was completed. What were the results of this review? What are the current and projected technical and economic feasibilities of macroalgae biofuel production? That should be established before the resource assessment. Reviewer: 5 Nice presentation of a straightforward project. Given the scarcity of data on macroalgae conversion, some Page 90 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. of the underlying assumptions in the model seemed unlikely. It is unclear how helpful this assessment will prove to be. Reviewer: 6 This was a terribly underassuming talk that did not articulate any compelling argument for the work. It's an interesting subject, though, and one would hope the project is better managed if continued. It is simply difficult to provide much more than that in commentary based upon what was presented. Reviewer: 7 This appears to be an early first step in developing a meaningful macroalgae feedstock resource analysis. The incompleteness of the work needs to be emphasized to put the status of the survey in proper perspective. Presenter Response 6.1. NC 6.2 This project has two primary modeling activities that are being developed in parallel: first, the macroalgae biophysical growth model and spatial assessment, and second, the competing use and infrastructure constraints model. The macroalgae growth 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 used from past and current lab and field studies conducted by team members who are experts in the field, as well as through current peer-reviewed literature. Selection of the kelp was based on growth characteristic, known biochemical feedstock constituents, and current international activities that have identified the brown macroalgae as suitable marine biomass. Observation data from the literature and PNNL's own field sites will be used for model validation. The conceptual framework for the spatial assessment has been established such that we can conduct analysis at the 1km spatial resolution for U.S. EEZ. While not a part of the formal operating plan at this point in time, additional considerations for storm track frequencies and wave heights can be factored in and used to help establish a prioritization of areas where macroalgae growth is favorable. Growth model results will be used in conjunction with spatial modeling of competing use analysis, regulatory requirements, and existing/required infrastructure to further refine the prioritization of potential sites and economic viability. The team consists of established experts in marine spatial planning and GIS modeling, mass and energy balance modeling, geoinformatics and spatial modeling, marine phycology and algal ecology, ecological risk assessment, and marine biotechnology. 6.3. We are not advocating development in coastal regions or harvest of natural populations. In fact, we are inclined to follow the recommendations of the Pew Oceans Commission that marine aquaculture for the United States should focus on offshore, rather than nearshore, waters. Our goal is to provide an unbiased national resource assessment for cultivation of macroalgae as marine biomass as a contribution to national biofuels feedstock production goals stipulated in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). Environmental aspects including habitat and species are being considered under “competing uses” in our assessment. 6.4. NC 6.5. NC 6.6. NC 6.7. We discuss the relatively early stage of our GIS model development and application and provide explanatory background above. The GIS model development is a new task initiated in FY11. Project: 9.6.1.2 PNNL Title: Microalgae Analysis Presenter: Mark Wigmosta Presentation Date: Friday, April 08, 2011 Page 91 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:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 89: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?