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.
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