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. Criteria Avg Score Std Deviation Count Approach 5.43 1.29 7 Progress 5.57 1.18 7 Relevance 6.00 1.41 7 Critical Success Factors 5.14 1.36 7 1. Project Approach 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 The approach is quite reasonable. Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 6 Modelling study based on production of 220 billion L/yr of algal biofuels. Designed to aid in site selection for farms. The presentation did not clarify what productivity levels (what algal species? what productivity figures?) are being input to the model. The PI notes that the water resources' database is from 1978 and presents a problem in modelling effort. The basic unit selected for model seems reasonable (100 farm ponds of 10 acres each plus 200 acres for infrastructure). The model should include additional sensitivity analysis in two ways: 1) Ground-truthing of sites selected by the model as good is needed to see if the model is really performing, and 2) the model needs to incorporate sealevel rise predictions/changes in predicted precipitation patterns on a decadal level for the next 30 years, at least. Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 4 A systematic biophysical evaluation of resource demands and constraints on microalgae biofuel production. Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 7 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 6 The objectives are to continue development of resource demands and constraints on microalgal production. The approach and targets are technically sound. Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 6 This is detailed but misses the crucial application of experience of application. The approach is exhaustive and pays good attention to detail, but its a bit too sanitized. If the PI's could integrate the view from the ground, i.e. the farmer, into their criteria this would become an excellent study. I encourage the PI's to include this perspective and turn this work into an excellent product for the DOE. Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 3 The project should be structured such that all major factors affecting the potential production are defined Page 92 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. and accounted through the Integrated Assessment framewok before specific numerical results are presented and published. Presenter Response [1.1] N/C --- [1.2a] Biomass productivity was estimated using a biophysical growth model based on incoming solar radiation and water temperature determined from local meteorology through energy balance calculations. Biological input parameters to the model were derived from current literature and are explicitly described in Wigmosta et al. (2011). As noted the last systematic national water resource assessment was conducted in 1978. Part of our current effort is to estimate water availability with the most current information at each potential pond site. [1.2b] We agree that ground-truthing is an important issue for assessments of resource use and algal biofuel production. We have approached this issue at several levels including: 1) In the early phases of our efforts in developing the Biomass Assessment Tool (BAT) we worked closely with J.R. Benemann and D.B. Anderson in developing the conceptual design, data requirements, and underlying assumptions for the algal growth model which is the foundation for the biomass production and resource use estimates produced by the BAT. 2) Simulated pond evaporation rates from our model were compared with corrected pan evaporation data over a range of climate zones. 3) To the extent possible, based on limited published literature values and anecdotal information provided by J.R. Benemann derived from his direct experiences in algae cultivation, we have attempted to benchmark our analytical results. For example, our results indicate an average conversion efficiency of total solar energy to organic mass of approximately 1%. This is consistent with the published value of 1%-3% for observed yields from Williams and Laurens (2010). We also found our calculated national mean annual vegetable oil production rate of 5775 L/ha/yr is conservatively well below the published value for current production of 14,000 L/ha/yr by Mascarelli (2009). We have plans, during the summer months of 2011 to visit several research sites where algal growth experiments are planned or underway including: 1) PNNL's Marine Science Laboratory where current lab experiments represent different U.S. regional climates and focus in on both fresh and saline water algal strains; 2) University of Arizona where focus is on the design and operation of raceway's in arid climates using freshwater species; 3) Texas A&M (Pecos) to evaluate large-scale pond systems and production strains for biomass and lipids; and 4) Utah State University where research is focused on cold weather cultivation and alternative nutrient addition strategies. We will also monitor algal growth experiments at New Mexico State University and Texas A&M (Corpus Christi). [1.2c] Using the GIS capabilities of BAT, it would be relatively straightforward to consider the impacts of sea level rise to evaluate the sensitivity of microalgae production potential to alternative climate change scenarios, particularly related to land availability in the coastal regions. --- [1.3] N/C --- [1.4] N/C --- [1.5] N/C --- [1.6] We agree with the invaluable need to ground-truth from the perspective of operators/farmers; please see Response [1.2b]. --- [1.7] We agree with the reviewer in that it is ideal to model the major factors in multiple stages of the lifecycle process, as is being done under the INL/PNNL Integrated Assessment Framework (IAF) project. There are however, clear benefits to the scientific research community to share periodic and logical progressions within specific lifecycle stages; the current project has benefited from such presentations and publications from others, and our assumptions, results and contributions have been peer-reviewed by experts in the field and published in Wigmosta et. al (2011). It should also be noted, that the IAF leverages major components developed under the current project allowing a model progression to include and represent the "resource to production to refinery" portion of the lifecycle. 2. Technical Progress and Accomplishments Please evaluate the degree to which the project has made progress in its objectives and stated project management plan Page 93 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:
Page 41 and 42: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 91: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
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?